Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - MuslimMan123

Pages: [1]
« on: May 13, 2017, 08:35:33 AM »
Assalamu alaykum dear brothers.
The other day I came across this hadith where a companion of the Prophet PBUH, talks about how Prophet Muhammad PBUH taught them that, no Prophet dies before reaching half the age which the Prophet before him did. Propet Muhammad PBUH lived 62 and a half years and he tells them that Jesus, Son of Mary lived 125 years. But is this accurate? I mean most historians, who judge based on historical evidence from ancient historians suppose that Jesus (according to them) got crucified around age 34. I mean we Muslims know that the Lord Almighty did not allow Jesus PBUH to die so he raised him unto himself. But wouldnt that imply that Jesus only lived 34 on Earth? Regardless of how much I tried I couldnt find the hadith. Can someone explain this matter? Or is something wrong with this particular hadith.
Peace be upon you!

Assalamu alaykum brothers and sisters. I have a question. We all know the story of ways of recitation and how they came to be etc. As we know, to conclude that a qiraat or form of recitation is genuine there are certain requirements, one of which healthy transmission from scholar to student and so on. I would like to dearly apologize for not providing the non-Muslim argument itself as Ive lost the thread/site where it came from, however the Hafs qiraat, which 80% of the Muslims use today has a chain of transmission but only one, and we know for a hadith or qiraat to be genuine two or more chains of transmission need to be present. Also, one of the greatest scholars of Hafs was Hafs Ibn Sulayman, yet some reports say he was a liar, who used to change and manipulate with the hadith so he cannot be trusted regarding qiraat. My question is were there deally only one chain of people who transmitted this qiraat or were there more? Please ya akhis, if possible, provide evidence within hadith or related work.
May Allah be pleased with you, Assalamu Alaykum.

Assalamu alaykum dear brothers and sisters.
I ran into a claim by Rashad Khalifa, who said that Marwan Ibn Al Hakam destroyed the genuine Quran because of the so called verses "inserted to praise the prophet, which Ali was furious about. This lie was refuted however I had two particular questions.
1. Did Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, really consider these verses interpolations or is this a shia lie.
2. Did Marwan really destroy the original genuine Quran with the verses because he thought they were interpolations and would divide the Muslims. Rashad provides this source for this argument - ULUM AL-QURAN', by Ahmad von Denffer, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, United Kingdom, 1983, Page 56-

Assalamu alaykum once more, peace be with you all!

« on: January 09, 2017, 04:39:06 AM »
Assalamu Alaykum everyone. Peace be with you.
So we all know the story of Ishmael PBUH and his Mother, and how she went 7 times around the place we now today call Ka'aba, and how water sprung below Ishmael's PBUH feet etc. But now I have a question. Who built Ka'aba, was it Adam or Abraham (Along with his son), peace be upon them all. I've heard people say Abraham REBUILT it, so the thesis that Adam built it is most believeable. But now, if the Ka'aba was built by Adam, why then were Ishmael PBUH and his mother wandering around in a deserted place where they couldn't even find water? How do you bros explain this? Or is there a mistake with how I've understood the entire story.

Once again, Assalamu alaykum!

« on: December 22, 2016, 04:47:41 PM »
Assalamu alaykum.
First of all Id like to apologize for not providing any evidence or link to this questin as I saw the video a long time ago

So I came across tthis video on youtube that said Mecca, the Kaaba the Black stone were all Hindu once upon a time. Meaning that the Prophet changed that religion into modern day Islam. They show some "similarities" between the two faiths such as the growth of the beard etc. Historically this is ridiculous and has no basis. But whats your opinion, are their arguments genuine, do they weigh anything?

Assalamu alaykum everyone.
Ive heard stories since a child that once, Abu Talib and our beloved Prophet PBUH were traveling for trade reasons. During the travel they meet a chrisitian priest. Some people say this priest is named Bahira some Gergiz but Im not sure. So they say one he saw the Prophet he immediately invited him and Abu Talib to his house. There he said that Muhammad PBUH is prophesised in the older books. He also makes a mention of a sign having to do with the Prophets shoulder or something.
How true is this story? Which hadiths or historical reference mentions this?
Thank you, Assalamu alaykum, once more.

Assalamu alaykum dear bros and sisters. Hope you're having an amazing day.
I had a question regarding the ascension of the prophet into the heavens. Ive read or heard somewhere that the Prophet spoke to Allah Almighty but in between them was a veil of light. So Im not asking if he saw Allah but did he speak to Him? Is there evidence in the hadith that suggests this and what is the opinion of the scholars regarding the topic?

Thank you in advance and as always, Assalamu Alaykum.

Assalamu Akaykum dear brothers and sisters.
Before I ask the question I would want to apologize as recently Ive been somewhat annoying with these questions and all of them are regarding the preservation of the Quran, and I believe I should be a little more general on the blog than just focus on one topic such as this, but hopefully this topic will benefit us InshaAllah.

I came across these hadith:
Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham and was offering a two-rak`at prayer; I said, "O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion." Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), "I hope Allah has given me my request." The man asked (me), "Where are you from?" I replied, "I am from the people of Kufa." He said, "Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um `Abd (i.e. `Abdullah bin Mas`ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night:92)?" I recited:-- "By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female." (92.1- 3) On that, Abu Darda said, "By Allah, the Prophet (ﷺ) made me read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) tried their best to let me say something different."
Sahih al-Bukhari 3761
Book 62, Hadith 108
Vol. 5, Book 57, Hadith 105

Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham with a group of the companions of `Abdullah (bin Mas`ud). Abu Ad-Darda' heard of our arrival so he came to us and said, "Is there anybody among you who can recite (Qur'an)" We replied in the affirmative. Then he asked, "Who is the best reciter?" They pointed at me. Then he told me to recite, so I recited the verse:-- 'By the night as it envelops 'By the day as it appears in brightness; By (Him Who created) male and the female.' (92.1-3) Abu Ad-Darda' then said to me, "Did you hear it (like this) from the mouth of your friend (`Abdullah bin Mas`ud)?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I too, heard it (like this) from the mouth of the Prophet, but these people do not consider this recitation as the correct one."
Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 467
Book 65, Hadith 4943

Narrated 'Alqamah:
"We arrived in Ash-Sham and we went to Abu Ad-Darda. So he said: 'Is there any among you who can recite for me according to the recitation of 'Abdullah?'" He said: "They pointed to me, so I said: 'Yes, [I (can recite)].' He said: 'How did you hear 'Abdullah recite this Ayah: By the night as it envelopes?'" He said: "I said: 'I heard him recite it: "Wal-Laili Idha Yaghsha, Wadh-Dhakari Wal-Untha" Abu Ad-Darda said: 'Me too, By Allah, this is how I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) reciting it. But these people want me to recite it: Wa Ma Khalaqa but I will not follow them.'"

English reference    : Vol. 5, Book 43, Hadith 2939
Arabic reference    : Book 46, Hadith 3191

As we can see in the aforementioned hadith, there was a dispute amongst Abu Darda, Alqama and indirectly Ibn Masud and the people of Sham regarding the correct recitation of the
chapter. How did this come to be? Is this a difference in Qiraat. Can someone provide a historical background to the matter? Did thia happen before the distribution of the Uthmanic Mushaf? Or is this as Christian Missionaries claim, man made interpolation (of course not, we bring it up just for the sake of argument though). Some say the recitement got abrogated and this is the opinion of Ibn Hajar but theres no proof as far as Im concerned that supports such a thing. Did Abu Darda switch to the modern day recitement which reads:"And [by] He who created the male and female..." which is dufferent from what he/they discuss and recite in the hadith above?

Assalamu alaykum we rahmatullahi we barakatuhu.

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Question regarding abrogation.
« on: December 11, 2016, 01:43:58 PM »
Assalamu Alaykum dear brothers and sisters.
I had a question regarding abrogation which kinda' got me thinking.

Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abd al-‘Azeem az-Zarqaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:"...
1. Abrogation of both the ruling and the verses.
2. Abrogation of the ruling but not the verses.
3. Abrogation of the verses but not the ruling

So we can see that each occasion of abrogation is regarding a law, or ruling, but is there a possibility of a mere verse, that does not contain a law, ruling or commandment to be abrogated? Or does abrogation occur only about laws, rulings etc.?
Please, if possible, back your opinions with hadith and opinions of scholars.
Have a great day and as always, Assalamu Alaykum!

« on: December 04, 2016, 07:30:39 PM »
Assalamu alaykum.
I came across this claim that the Quran prohibits the consummation of the flesh of pigs, dead animals etcetera but not that of humans. Also, Ive noticed news on the net of some "scholars" actually ALLOWING cannibalism and saying that it's fine through fatwas. Is this true? I would love a refutation based on hadith and Quranic evidence.


Assalamu Alaykum.
Recently I came across the below text.
It's quite a long read, so take your time, but I would love a point by point refutation to their/his claims.
It is quite important as it discusses the preservation of the Qur'an. Once more, I think a total refutation and rebuttal to their claims in entirety is required, as it's quite a few topics regarding Quranic Preservation at stake. Thanks, may Allah bless you.

Quranic Preservation claims made by Bassam Zawadi. Introducing the facts.
(Updated Feb 2012)

In order to save the Quran from clear indications of corruption, Bassam Zawadi in his debate with Nabeel Qureshi came up with a very unique criterion on what exactly the "perfect preservation of the Quran" is:
"What do I mean by that? What do I mean when I say the Quran is perfectly preserved? All I mean is simply this: If the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were alive today and we were to look at the Quran that we have he would say that there is no chapter or verse falsely added to or missing from the Quran"
Zawadi’s methodology is simple in his debate and in his articles; usually whenever someone points out a verse is missing in the Quran according to certain authentic hadith narrations Zawadi then passes it off as an “abrogation of recitation and ruling” or “abrogation of reciting but not ruling”. Read his article here for a good explanation of what he means by that.

In the first place it's noteworthy to mention that Uthman the compiler of the Quran himself had not heard of these concepts. For him what was abrogated, wasn't removed altogether, it stayed in it's place:
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53:

Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:

I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place."
Another translation reads:
He replied, “O my nephew, I will not remove anything from its original place.”
Secondly, this means that despite there being no direct evidence of certain verses being “abrogated” according to the narration, Zawadi always begs the question and comes up with indirect reasons why he thinks the verse must be abrogated even if it’s not mentioned explicitly. He must always assume on some level that God abrogated those verses, otherwise these narrations recording additions to verses, and even entire verses would constitute as evidence against his claim that “no verse was falsely added to or missing from the Quran”. The key word here is falsely added because Zawadi knows that some Quranic verses were removed, scripts were modified and changed and copies of the Mushaf (Quranic text) were burnt, and he knows all hell broke loose among the companions of Mohammed. Zawadi therefore must show that every verse was in fact removed with divine permission, which he seemingly thinks he does, later I show at least one example (A quotation from Aisha) where this is certainly is not the case.
In this article Zawadi says:
Here are the hadith that Christian missionaries present to show that an addition has been made to the Quran... 
Saheeh Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 85:

Narrated 'Alqama:

I went to Sham and offered a two-Rak'at prayer and then said, "O Allah! Bless me with a good pious companion." So I went to some people and sat with them. An old man came and sat by my side. I asked, "Who is he?" They replied, "(He is) Abu-Ad-Darda.' I said (to him), "I prayed to Allah to bless me with a pious companion and He sent you to me." He asked me, "From where are you?" I replied, "From the people of Al-Kufa." He said, "Isn't there amongst you Ibn Um 'Abd, the one who used to carry the shoes, the cushion(or pillow) and the water for ablution? Is there amongst you the one whom Allah gave Refuge from Satan through the request of His Prophet. Is there amongst you the one who keeps the secrets of the Prophet which nobody knows except him?" Abu Darda further asked, "How does 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) recite the Sura starting with, 'By the Night as it conceals (the light)." (92.1) Then I recited before him:

'By the Night as it envelops: And by the Day as it appears in brightness; And by male and female.' (91.1-3) On this Abu Ad-Darda' said, "By Allah, the Prophet made me recite the Sura in this way while I was listening to him (reciting it)."

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105:

Narrated Alqama:

I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, "O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion." Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), "I hope Allah has given me my request." The man asked (me), "Where are you from?" I replied, "I am from the people of Kufa." He said, "Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night:92)?" I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female." (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, "By Allah, the Prophet made me read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) tried their best to let me say something different."

When reading the Hadith we see that the companion Abu Darda believed that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Abdullah ibn Masud recite Surah 92:3 as...

And by male and female

Besides how we have it today, which is:

And by the creation of the male and the female,
Next Zawadi quotes a commentary from Al-Qurtubi and later concludes:
"Therefore, as we can see this is only one narration by a certain individual who believed that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) recite the verse the way he thought. However, how come there was no one else who also supported Abu Darda'a? How can ALL OF THE UMMAH be wrong while only he was right? Obviously he was speaking from bad memory and human error. More on this topic could be read here."
I traveled through to his webpage, Zawadi ends up ironically abrogating his own "defense". While in the first article he argues that while the report is authentic the humans are fallible and simply made a mistake, and the majority testimony is favourable.

The second article he however, he argues a different view:
The recital, "By the male and the female," was taught by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to Ibn Masud. The common recitation, "And by Him Who created male and female," was also taught by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to his companions. Both are, therefore, authoritative and directly Revealed by God. However, the first recital was most probably later abrogated by Muhammad (peace be upon him); hence it is no longer deemed to be a part of the Quran. This, of course, does nothing to affect the status of the other (common) reading.

However, Abu Darda' did not know about the abrogation. Later, however, he accepted the recitation "By the creation of male and female" since this is also transmitted from him!

Interestingly enough, the common recitation is also transmitted by Ibn Masud and 'Alqamah!

As Ibn Hajar explains:

This recitation was not transmitted except through those mentioned here and everybody else recited "By the creation of male and female" and this is the established recitation despite the authentic chain of transmitters of the other recitation up to Abul Darda' and those mentioned with him. This is probably from among what was abrogated and its abrogation was not acknowledged by Abul Darda' and those mentioned with him. It is strange that the huffaz of Kufa transmitted this recitation on the authority of Ibn Masud and 'Alqamah up to whom the authority of recitation in Kufa ends, then none of them recited it. People of Sham as well transmitted the recitation on the authority of Abul Darda' and none of them recited this. This enforces the fact that this recitation was abrogated. (Ibn Hajar, Fath-ul-Bari fe Sharh Sahih-el-Bukhari, Book of "Exegesis of the Qur'an", Chapter 442, Number 3966)

Thus the recitation "By the creation of male and female" is not only transmitted by Abu Darda' and Ibn Masud, but is also transmitted by those who learnt the Quran from them. Obviously, Abul Darda' later realized that the former recitation was abrogated.

Furthermore, even if one rejects the above explanation, Shamoun's argument still does not work. To remind the readers, Shamoun is citing these and other passages to "show" that the Quran could not be deemed as God's direct Word and Revelation. But the above example does not support this conclusion in any manner since both recitations were taught by Muhammad (peace be upon him) and are God's direct Word and Revelation. If we dismiss the reading "By the male and the female," the other reading ("And by Him Who created male and female,") remains God's direct Word and Revelation. But if we accept both readings, then we are saying that they both constitute God's direct Word and Revelation.
So apart from abrogating himself, as I said without any evidence from the hadith, he indirectly reasons this reading was abrogated, always begging the question and assuming this isn't a textual variant.
Zawadi and Ibn Hajar forget the strict conditions in which they may assert verses are abrogated, Muslim Scholar Bilal Philips in his book Usool at-Tafseer - The Methodology of Qur'aanic Explanation, lay it out for us

For naskh to have taken place, the following three conditions must have been fulfilled:

1. The law which has been replaced has to have been a divine law...

2. The proof used to replace the old law has to be a divine command which was revealed after the revelation of the old law...

The law which is to be replaced cannot have a specific time limit attached to it from the time of its revelation. If it has a limited time period, it simply becomes void when the time period ends, and such a process is not considered as naskh...
It should be noted that naskh only occurs to divine commands and prohibitions. Naskh cannot occur to statements of fact, because such statements are either true or false, so to say that a previous report has been abrogated really means it was either a deliberate lie or an error, both of which may not be attributed to Allaah.21 Therefore, descriptions of Allaah’s attributes, the stories of the previous prophets and their peoples, parables and descriptions of the hereafter are all excluded from the category of naskh. 165-166
Further more:
However, it should be noted that the number of authentic cases of naskh are few and far between. There are only three reliable ways to identify these cases

1. A clearly worded narration from the Prophet (r) or one of his companions (sahaabee)...

2. The unanimous agreement of early Muslim scholars on both the law which was replaced and the one which replaced it. That is, their recognition of the fact that an abrogation took place and not their agreement to abrogate a divine law...

3. Reliable historical knowledge of a law being put into practice during an earlier historical period, then a later law appears to clearly contradict it...
Naskh cannot be determined by ijtihaad (reasoning in the absence of clear evidence), nor by the opinion of a Qur’aanic commentator, nor solely by the apparent contradiction of texts... PG 166-168
The naskh of either the Qur’aan or the Sunnah by ijmaa‘ (unanimous

agreement of the scholars) or qiyaas (analogous deduction) cannot occur, as neither ijmaa‘ or qiyaas are of divine origin. Both ijmaa‘ and qiyaas are the result of human intellectual effort, therefore, their conclusions are subject to error. So even though ijmaa‘ and qiyaas are considered to be two of the sources of Islaamic law (fiqh), they are not considered to be a part of Sharee‘ah (divine law). However, they may be used when applying the Sharee‘ah to circumstances not specified in the Qur’aan or Sunnah. PG 172
Within the Qur’aan itself, naskh may occur in three different forms in relation to the recitation of the abrogated verse and validity of the abrogated law contained in the verse.
1. Naskh of the Verse and the Law
In the first form, not only is the law abolished and a new law put in its place, but also the verse which contained the old law is removed by divine decree from the Qur’aan itself.
2. Naskh of the Verse Alone, Not the Law
In this case, Allaah had the verse removed from the Qur’aan and its recitation stopped without replacing the law. This type of naskh is also uncommon, though not as uncommon as the first form. (PG 174-175)
As you can see Zawadi has met none of these conditions. First the fallacy of category. Unlike the other abrogations of recitation and ruling and abrogations of recitation but not ruling, this is not in fact a Law but rather a description of Allah's creative attribute meaning it cannot be abrogated. Second the prophet made no clear explicit statement that this was abrogated. Third, there is no unanimous consensus of early Muslim scholars abrogating this recitation. And finally personal reasoning and commentaries are ruled out altogether. All the evidence is in.

The second way in which Zawadi attempts to make his belief non-falsifiable is to assert that all variant readings within the verses of the Quran are divinely given and approved of by God. How does he do this? Zawadi appeals to what he sees as authentic reports showing Mohammed received seven modes in which to recite the Quran. These modes were supposed to make it easier for each individual to recite the mode of the Quran suitable for them. These modes are also meant to explain away why the Quran has various readings.
Here is what Zawadi says on the subject:
“Scholars still have not come to a consensus regarding what these Seven Ahruf are. Some said that the Quran was revealed in seven different ways (not all the verses, only some) with synonyms replacing certain words. For example, besides saying "ehdina al sirat al mustaqeem" in one harf it would read "arshudna al sirat al mustaqeem" in another and they would both mean the same thing, which is "Guide us unto the right path". It seems to me that this is the strongest opinion as to what the seven ahruf are.

Also the ten Qira'at are the different ways of reciting the Quran, which (according to the strongest opinion of the scholars) contain parts of the seven ahruf in them. It is also that they are all good and divinely accepted. very important to mention that these Qira'at have MUTAWATTIR NARRATIONS GOING STRAIGHT BACK TO THE COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET, which means that the Prophet approved of them. Once we have strong evidence as we do now knowing that the Prophet approved of them then that is enough for the Muslim to know (check here)“
Well I use to think the Trinity was a bit beyond comprehension and mysterious, but let me get this straight. According to Zawadi’s opinion, God’s eternal attribute of speech known as the Quran exists in 7 anonymous modes which are only some verses of the Quran but not others, and only parts of these modes are contained in the 10 Recitations?

Well that clears it all up….
But far from being the strongest opinion, the modes are not Synonyms as Zawadi suggests, the Prophet disproved this understanding:
“Ubayy b. Ka'b reported: The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: Ubayy, I was asked to recite the Qur'an. I was asked: In one mode or two modes? The angel that accompanied me said: Say in two modes. I said: In two modes. I was again asked: In two modes or three? The angel that was in my company said: Say, in three modes. So I said: In three modes. The matter reached up to seven modes. He then said: Each mode is sufficiently health-giving, whether you utter "all-hearing and all-knowing" OR INSTEAD "all-powerful and all-wise". This is valid until you finish the verse indicating punishment on mercy and finish the verse indicating mercy on punishment. (Sunan Abu Dawud, English translation with explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984], Volume I, Hadith Number 1472, p. 387]”
The modes are also not dialects, and nobody actually knows the real meaning even after lifetimes of investigation(look here). Zawadi therefore has a problem; he has no clue what the hell his prophet is talking about. When Zawadi asserts that the recitations have parts of the modes he actually doesn’t know what constitutes a mode, so he actually has no evidence the recitations are connected to or have parts of the modes within them.

Like Zawadi the following Salafi website claims the Ahruf (modes) are Synonyms and contain no contradictions:
“It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: "It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’). (Source)"
However far from it, a Muslim author Shehzad Saleem with an opposing view to Zawadi and the Salafis has pointed out the variant readings do the change meaning:
"According to the readings of Hamzah, Abu Amr, and Ibn Kathir we find arjulikum in place of the standard reading of arjulakum in the fifth verse of Surah Ma’idah. This changes the meaning quite drastically. The reading arjulikum would mean that in wudu feet are to be wiped (the Arabic verb for wiping is Masah) as against arjulakum, the standard reading according to which feet are to be washed. An indication within the verse rejects the reading of arjulikum. If read thus (ie in the genitive), the mention of the words ila al-ka‘bayn (up to the ankles) after arjulikum means that feet are to be wiped up to the ankles. We know that Masah is basically a symbolic expression signifying the attainment of purity and has been allowed to produce ease. Whereas in case of water, it is necessary that the extent to which the feet are to be washed be known, in case of Masah a mention of this extent is an obvious redundancy. In other words, the words ila al-ka‘bayn in this case are superfluous. They only become meaningful if feet are to be washed.
Consequently, another verse of the Qur’an, which actually describes Tayammum (dry ablution), mentions the Masah of the face and the hands without specifying the extent to which this Masah is to be done:

… And if you find no water then take for yourselves clean sand or earth and rub therewith your hands and faces. (4:43)

Redundant words, of course, do not exist in the elegant diction of the Qur’an. Therefore, on the basis of this internal testimony provided within the verse, the reading arjulikum stands rejected as well.

This analysis should serve as a pointer at all the variant readings and brings out their fallacy.”
According to Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi as quoted on Bismikaallahuma:
"In fact, there is no contradiction whatsoever, for each recitation applies to a different circumstance. In general, the ablution is performed by ‘washing’ the feet. However, if a person is wearing shoes or socks, and he had ablution before putting them on, he is allowed – in fact even encouraged – to ‘wipe’ over his feet, and is not obliged to wash them. 465 Az-Zarkashee said, “These two verses can be combined to understand that one reading deals with wiping over the socks, while the second reading deals with washing the feet (in case of not wearing socks).”
Well that's an ad hoc explanation if I've heard heard one. But aside from being ad hoc he merely assumes that the verse is addressing two different circumstances. The contradiction remains.

Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi also says:
"VII. The Relationship of the Ahruf with the Qira’aat

The relationship of the ahruf with the authentic qira’aat must by essence depend upon what the definition of ahruf is, and whether one believes that the ahruf are still in existence today. Therefore, the scholars of Islaam have defined this relationship depending upon their respective definitions of the ahruf. The three major opinions on this issue are as follows: 455

1) The opinion of Imaam at-Tabaree (d. 310 A.H.), Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 A.H.), and others, is that all the authentic qira’aat are based upon one harf of the Qur’aan. This is because, as was mentioned in the last chapter, they hold that the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan eliminated the other six ahruf and preserved only one harf.

However, this opinion does not seem very strong, since, if the origin of all of the authentic qira’aat is one harf, then where do all the differences between the qira’aat originate from? In addition, as was mentioned in the previous chapter, the opinion that only one harf has been preserved does not seem to be the strongest.

2) The opinion of al-Baaqillaani (d. 403 A.H.) and a few scholars is that all of the seven ahruf are preserved in the qira’aat, such that each harf is found scattered throughout the qira’aat. Therefore, there is no single qira’aat that corresponds exactly to any one harf, but each qiraa’a represents various ahruf such that, in the sum total of the qira’aat, the ahruf are preserved.

This opinion also is based upon these scholars’ belief that all of the ahruf have been preserved. This opinion seems like a strong opinion, except for the fact that there exists many narrations in which the Companions used to recite differently from any of the present qira’aat (these are today present in the shaadh qira’aat). It seems that they were reciting a peculiar harf of the Qur’aan, but this was not preserved in the qira’aat. 456

3) The opinion of Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437 A.H.), Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.), Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.), as-Suyootee, and others, and the one that is perhaps the strongest, is that the qira’aat represent portions of the seven ahruf, but not all of the seven ahruf in totality. The differences between the qira’aat, even the most minute of differences, originate from the seven ahruf, but not every difference between the seven ahruf is preserved in the qira’aat. This goes back to our position on the existence of the ahruf today: that they exist inasmuch as the script of the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan allows them to. In the last chapter, the methodology that the Companions used to decide which ahruf to preserve was discussed. Those ahruf that were preserved are the ones that are in existence today, through the variations in the qira’aat.

To summarise the last two chapters, we quote Makkee ibn Abee Taalib (d. 437 A.H.), who wrote,

“When the Prophet (PBUH) died, many of the Companions went to the newly conquered territories of the Muslims, and this was during the time of Aboo Bakr and ‘Umar. They taught them the recitation of the Qur’aan and the fundamentals of the religion. Each Companions taught his particular area the recitation that he had learnt from the Prophet (PBUH) (i.e., the various ahruf). Therefore the recitations of these territories differed based on the differences of the Companions.

Now, when ‘Uthmaan ordered the writing of the mus-hafs, and sent them to the new provinces, and ordered them to follow it and discard all other readings, each of the territories continued to recite the Qur’aan the same way that they had done so before the mus-haf had reached them, as long as it conformed to the mus-haf. If their recitation differed with the mus-haf, they left that recitation…

This new recitation was passed on from the earlier generations to the later ones, until it reached these seven Imaams 457 (Qaarees) in the same form, and they differed with each other based upon the differences of the people of the territories – none of whom differed with the mus-haf that ‘Uthmaan had sent to them. This, therefore, is the reason that the Qaarees have differed with each other…” 458

Therefore, the differences in the qira’aat are ramnants of the differences in the way that the Prophet (PBUH) taught the recitation of the Qur’aan to the different Companions, and these differences were among the seven ahruf of the Qur’aan which Allaah reevaled to the Prophet (PBUH). Thus, the ten authentic qira’aat preserve the final recitation that the Prophet (PBUH) recited to Jibreel – in other words, the qira’aat are manifestations of the remaining ahruf of the Qur’aan.(Chapter 11 of An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, pp. 184-202 (1999), Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution. Compiled by Usman Sheikh)"
Option 1 therefore is rejected due to circular reasoning. If the Qiraat don't exist due to the 7 Ahruf, they must have come into existance without divine permission and hence the Quran has man-made variants. Therefore this option must be rejected since the presupposition is the Quran cannot be corrupted. Option 2 likewise is circular, if all the modes are still in the Quran, then the different recitations recorded in authentic hadiths that are not part of the Quran are proof that there are variants outside of the seven ahruf, demonstrating the Quran has man made variants once again!

However since the Quran, can't be corrupt, the Quran can't be corrupt. Circular reasoning. Finally we are left with Zawadi's pick, option 3 where Uthman confines the modes of the various territories s to be in line with his text. Why does Uthman do this? To save conflict emerging and to save the Muslims from disputing like the Jews and Christians. So Uthman does this for pragmatic reasons, not because he has divine permission or permission from his Prophet. Hence Gabriel revealed the Quran in seven Ahruf, and Mohammed taught and gave his explicit consent and command to his companions to recite in each of these ways, but Uthman restricts the recitation in direct contradiction to Allah, Gabriel and Mohammed.

According to the same chapter under the title: "The Other Types of Qira'aat" we have evidence of option 2, and how Muslims explain it away:
"2) The Shaadh (Irregular) Qira’aat: These qira’aat have an authentic chain of narration back to the Prophet (PBUH) AND conform to Arabic grammar, but do not match the mus-hafs of ‘Uthmaan. In addition, they are not mutawaatir. In other words, they employ words of phrases that the ‘Uthmaanic mus-hafs do not allow. Most of the time (but not all, see Suyootee’s classification below) this type of qira’aat was in fact used by the Companions as explanations to certain verses in the Qur’aan. For example, ‘Aa’ishah used to recite 2:238 ‘ …wa salat al-wusta’ with the addition ‘salat al-asr.’ The meaning of the first is, “Guard against your prayers, especially the middle one.” ‘As’ishah’s addition explained that the “middle prayer” alluded to in this verse is in fact the ‘Asr prayer. There are numerous authentic narrations from the Companions of this nature, in which they recited a certain verse in a way that the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan would not allow. 

Another explanation of this type of qira’aat is that they were a part of the ahruf that were revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) but later abrogated, and thus not preserved in the mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan...

The shaadh qira’aat, in particular, used to form a part of the seven ahruf that the Qur’aan was revealed in, but these recitations were abrogated by the Prophet (PBUH) himself, and therefore not preserved by ‘Uthmaan. Under this category fall many of the recitations that are transmitted with authentic chains of narrations from the Companions, and yet do not conform with the ‘Uthmaanic mus-haf. These recitations used to form a part of the Qur’aan, and were recited by the Companions, until they were abrogated by the Prophet (PBUH) before his death."
So the two explanation are
These are explanations/commentaries on the Quran by the companions
These variant recitations are abrogated.
Neither idea has any evidence in the hadith narration itself these are latter classifications Islamic scholars came up with.

The claim that the hadith is not Mutawattir is also irrelevant, due to the fact that multiple hadith and even the Quran recitations themselves are not all mutawattir from the Prophet to the reciters.

So all and all there is sufficent evidence to demonstrate these readings are still valid, God knows how many were lost.

The author admits the numerous authentic narrations demonstrating variants that no longer exist, so we have conclusive proof that either:
The companions flat out rejected the Uthmanic mushaf including Aisha.
Uthman shouldn't have restrained the other Modes
The variants were not abrogated at least according to many close companions who kept there recitals and transmitted them to there students generation after generation
The variants do not come from Ahruf but are rather innovations of the companions, corruptions and perversions of the Quran
The Ahruf are an ad-hoc explanation contrived because of the existence of variants in the first place! Evidence of the Ahruf hadith being weak for that is shown here.
The companions hide there readings due to political pressure and were forced to keep them in secret.
What view most makes sense? Certainly as you will see down below there existed atleast 25 Qiraat in the second, third, fourth century and only 7 + 3 ultimately were written down and preserved and became standardized. So unfortunately the Qiraat of many of the companions has been lost.

Going back to what Zawadi said above. Zawadi’s claim that all of these Qiraat are Mutawattir, according to this Muslim author they clearly not are not as they are Ahad (isolated reports), as Mr Saleem points out:
“It has already been shown that the Qur’an is Mutawatir (ie such a large number of people have transmitted the Qur’an that the existence of any error in the transmitted text is impossible). There exists a consensus of opinion among the scholars of our Ummah on this as well.

Consequently, Suyuti asserts:

There is no difference of opinion about the fact that whatever is contained in the Qur’an is Mutawatir both in totality and in part. To the Ahlu’l-Sunnah, the placements therein and its arrangement are all Mutawatir so that it [the Qur’an] becomes indisputable. This is because it is an acknowledged fact that the Qur’an is a document whose details desire Tawatur …. Consequently, whatever part of the Qur’an has been transmitted through the Ahad (isolate reports) and is not Mutawatir is unquestionably not the Qur’an by any means. (Suyuti, Itqan Fi ‘Ulumi’l-Qur’an, 2nd ed., vol. 1, [Baydar: Manshurat al-Radi, 1343 AH], p. 266)

Now, if the chains of narrators of these variant readings are examined, none of them can be claimed as Mutawatir. They may be Mutawatir from their famous originators but they are certainly not Mutawatir all the way from these originators up to the Prophet (sws). At best, they can be classified as Ahad (isolate reports). An example would suffice to illustrate this. Following are the three ways in which one of the Qurra’, ‘Asim Ibn Abi Najwad Al-Bahdlah (d: 127 AH) has narrated his reading from the Prophet (sws):

Muhammad (sws)

‘Abdu’llah Ibn Mas‘ud


Zirr Ibn Hubaysh

Abu ‘Abdu’l-Rahman Sullami

Abu ‘Amr Shaybani


‘Asim Ibn Abi Najwad


Hafs Ibn Sulayman

Abu Bakr ‘Ayyash


Muhammad (sws)


Zayd Ibn Thabit

Ubayyi Ibn Ka‘ab


Abu ‘Abdu’l-Rahman Sullami


‘Asim Ibn Abi Najwad


Hafs Ibn Sulayman

Abu Bakr ‘Ayyash


Muhammad (sws)




Zirr Ibn Hubaysh

Abu ‘Abdu’l-Rahman Sullami


‘Asim Ibn Abi Najwad


Hafs Ibn Sulayman

Abu Bakr ‘Ayyash

Muslim scholars recognize this very fact, but quite inexplicably most of them still insist on accepting these variant readings:

"The opinion of the majority is that these readings are Mutawatir. However, one opinion is that they are Mashhur28 …. The truth in this regard is that they are Mutawatir from these seven [Qurr’a]. As far as their Tawatur from the Prophet (sws) is concerned, this is debatable. For the chain of narrators of these seven are found in the books of Qira‘at. These chains are transmission from a single person to another and do not fulfil the condition of Tawatur neither from the first narrator to the last nor in between. (Zarkashi, Burhan, 2nd ed., vol. 1, [Beirut: Daru’l-Fikr, 1980] p. 319)"

(v) Not only are these readings isolate reports (Ahad), but also many of the narrators of these readings are not regarded as trustworthy by the scholars of ‘Ilmu’l-Rijal as far as accepting Ahadith from them is concerned. As an example, 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’:

‘Abdu’l-Rahman Ibn Abi Hatim, ‘Umar Ibn Shu‘ayb Sabuni, Ahmad Ibn Hambal, Bukhari, Muslim and Nasa‘i call him Matruku’l-Hadith (From whom Ahadith are not accepted) .… In the opinion of Yahya Ibn Mu‘in as quoted by Abu Qudamah Sarakhsi and ‘Uthman Ibn Sa‘id he is not trustworthy …. ‘Ali Ibn 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 ….. Salih Muhammad Al-Baghdadi says the Ahadith narrated by him are not worth writing and all of them mention unfamiliar things in religion. Zakariyyah Ibn Yahya Al-Saji narrates from Sammak and ‘Alqamah Ibn Marthad and Qays Ibn Muslim that his Ahadith are not reliable …. ‘Abdu’l-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. Abdu’l-Rahman Ibn Yusuf says that he is a great liar, worthy of being forsaken and forges Ahadith. Hakim Abu Ahmad says: He wastes Ahadith. Yahya Ibn Sa‘id says that he took a book from him but never returned it. He would take books from people and copy them. Abu Ahmad Ibn ‘Addi narrates from Al-Saji and Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdadi and Yahya Ibn Mu‘in that Hafs Ibn Sulayman and Abu Bakr Ibn ‘Ayyash are the most competent of all who know the reading of ‘Asim. Hafs is even more competent than Abu Bakr. However, Hafs is a great liar while Abu Bakr is reliable.29

It seems quite strange that a person so widely regarded as unreliable (even called a liar) in accepting Hadith from be regarded as a very dependable person as far the Qur’an is concerned.

It is clear from this analysis that these extant readings which are found in books of Tafsir and read and taught in religious schools can in no way be accepted. Whether they originated from insistence by some to cling to the first recital of the Qur’an, or were mere explanations of the actual verses written down by the companions in their own codices or, like the extraneous verses, were concocted to disparage the Qur’an is a mystery which perhaps may never be solved. However, this much is certain that they have nothing to do with the text of the Qur’an.”(Source)
If Zawadi has a problem with this, who should he take it up with?

Well himself….

As Zawadi on his website agrees that at least one pre-existing written copy of the Quran from the time of Mohammed and at least two witnesses’ are required to substantiate a reading, in fact he quotes this hadith approvingly:
“Umar said: Who ever received anything regarding the Quran from the Prophet (peace be upon him) then let him bring it. And they used to write it on the manuscripts and boards and date palmed stalks. He said that nothing would be accepted from anyone until two witnesses testify to it. "And this points out that Zayd was not satisfied with only finding it written down until someone testified that he heard it, even though Zayd himself had memorized it, and they used to take this extra precaution in order to be more cautious. And Abu Dawud contained a narration on the authority of Hisham bin Arwa that his father said that Abu Bakr said to Umar and Zayd: Sit down on the door of the Mosque and whoever of two witnesses come to you regarding the Quran then write it down'. The men of this narration are trustworthy despite the chain being broken, and the intended meaning regarding two witnesses was memorization and writing, or it meant that they both testify that what was written down was actually written down under the authority of the Messenger peace be upon him, or it meant that they both testify that it was sent down as Quranic revelation. And it was their way that nothing was written down except that they receive what was written down during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him and not just from memorization. (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Fadaa'il Al Qur'aan, Bab: Jami' Al Qur'aan, Commentary on Hadith no. 4603, Source)”
In his conclusion Zawadi even appeals to one particular individual as equal to two witnesses since the Prophet declared him to be so, and mentions how the multiple witness strength the authority of the Quran:
“So as we can clearly see there is no doubt at all regarding the authenticity of these verses. The companions already knew that these verses existed. However, the only issue was that since the caliph was so strict regarding the collection of the Quran, Zayd needed to find the evidence written down and not only memorized. Even after the verses were found with Abi Khuzaymah, the rest of the other companions remembered them and that strengthened the authority of these verses. This only goes to show how strict and cautious the Muslims were when they collected the Quran. Plus, even if Abi Khuzayma was the only witness, the Prophet (peace be upon him) honored his testimony to amount to two. So perhaps it was for this wisdom and purpose that Abi Khuzayma was the only witness for this verse and therefore Allah had it planned to be this way. This could be a test for us to put our trust in the Prophet (peace be upon him) and accept Abi Khuzayma as the only witness, since his testimony is equal to two.” (Source)
All of this presupposes Zawadi agrees that there must be at least two witnesses to substantiate credible testimony, however as the reports and sources show, this is not the case, these readings are not Mutawattir or Tawatur.

First of all, what is Tawatur?
"The first condition was that the recitation have an authentic chain of narration in which the chain of narrators was continuous, the narrators were all known to be righteous and they were all knwon to possess good memories. It was also required that the recitation be conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of the chain of narration below the level of Sahaabah (the condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic chains but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted as explanations (Tafseer) of the Sahaabah but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur'an. As for the narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of narration, they were classified as Baatil (false) and rejected totally." (here)
There are more examples, I won’t list them all but here are a few from Islamic Awareness:
“Qirâ'a from Makkah: The reading of Ibn Kathîr (cAbdullâh Ibn Kathîr ad-Dârî):

“Ibn Kathîr died in the year 120 H. He reported from cAbdillâh Ibn Assa'ib al-Makhzûmî who reported from Ubayy Ibn Kacb (The companion of the Prophet(P)).

Ibn Kathîr has also reported from Mujâhid Ibn Jabr who reported from his teacher Ibn Abbâs who reported from Ubayy Ibn Kacb and Zayd Ibn Thâbit and both reported from the Prophet(P).[15] “
In the first report a single chain of narration is provided right down to the prophet, failing the conditions of Tawatur and Mutawattir on all levels.

In the second report we have a ahad (isolated) report from Ibn Abbas to Ibn Jabr to Ibn Kathir.

Take a look at Ibn Kathirs isnad fully here

One last example:
“Qirâ'a from Damascus: From ash-Shâm (Damascus), the reading is called after Abdullâh Ibn cAamir.

He died in 118 H. He reported from Abû ad-Dardâ' and al-Mughîrah Ibn Abî Shihâb al-Makhzûmî from Uthmân.[16]”
In this ahad (isolated) report, we have a single chain (already disqualified) and it goes back to Uthman, not Mohammed.

According to the same website then these Qiraat don’t qualify as Mutawattir:
“Mutawatir and Ahad

Depending on the number of the reporters of the hadith in each stage of the isnad, i.e. in each generation of reporters, it can be classified into the general categories of Mutawatir ("consecutive") or Ahad ("single") hadith. A Mutawatir hadith is one which is reported by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together.

Al-Ghazali stipulates that a Mutawatir narration be known by the sizeable number of its reporters EQUALLY in the beginning, in the middle and at the end. He is correct in this stipulation because some narrations or ideas, ALTHOUGH KNOWN as Mutawatir AMONG SOME PEOPLE, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, ORIGINALLY HAVE NO TAWATUR.(source)”
Here is clear evidence that a Mutawattir reading must be Tawatur aswell and at all Mutawattir is required at all stages, even at the beginning stage with Mohammed’s companions and after.

According to Muslim author Shehzad Saleem, there were also not always only 10 recitations:
“It is said that the first person to record these readings in the form of a book was Abu ‘Ubayd Qasim Ibn Salam (d:224 AH). He recorded twenty five readings; Abu Ja‘far Tabari (d:310 AH) recorded over twenty readings, while it was Abu Bakr Ibn Mujahid (d: 324 AH) who selected the seven famous ones20. The number selected by Ibn Mujahid (seven) has been objected to by many scholars since this number has led people to think that these seven were the same as the seven Ahruf on which the Qur’an was supposed to have been revealed“
And Mufti Ebrahim Desai says the same:
During the first two centuries, there were approximately 25 different Qiraats, but they were not compiled. It was only in the third century that Imaam Abu Ubayd Qaasim ibn Salaam compiled the first book on Qiraat, 'Kitaab al-Qiraat'. Thereafter, in the fourth century, Imaam Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Moosa ibn Abbaas ibn Mujaahid compiled a Kitaab, namely 'Kitaab as-Sab'ah' in which he gathered seven Qiraat which were common in his era and commonly known as Qiraat as-Sab'ah.

Imaam Abu Muhammad Makki (RA) states that there were approximately 70 other Qiraats. However, he chose, only seven Qiraats and since he was a popular personality, his Kitaab also became very famous. That led to people concentrating only on the seven types of Qiraat.

Many great Aimmah disagreed with Imaam ibn Mujaahid of confining the Qiraats to seven and leaving out the other Qiraats. Therefore, they wrote Kitaabs consisting of the other Qiraats. Thus, we find that Qiraat al-Thalaathah (3 additional Qiraats) which we call Asharah.

(Question 14508 from Australia: Why does there exist different riwayat of the quran e.g. warsh, hafs? isn't the quran preserved in it's original form?; source;)
So not only is it many of the present recitations that Zawadi cannot substantiate come from Mohammed (according to Zawadi’s own criterion), the other recitations that existed have due to their unpopularity never been codified and written or preserved and hence these readings have been lost. So if Zawadi is correct that the Qiraat contain parts of the 7 modes, or as much of the 7 modes as possible within the parameters of the Uthmanic text , then the Ummah has failed to protect these divine modes within the Qiraat and hence Allah has failed to protect his Quran.

Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi like the above authors also confirmed the state of the Islamic 2nd, 3rd and 4th century and the existence of over 20 Qiraat. He then explains what happened next:
"Another misconception that arose was that some scholars assumed that these seven qira’aat were the only authentic qira’aat of the Qur’aan. Thus, these scholars considered any qira’aat besides these seven to be defective (shaadh) qira’aat. This, too, is a misconception, as there were other authentic qira’aat that Ibn Mujaahid did not compile.
Due to the popularity and excellence of Ibn Mujaahid’s book, these seven qira’aat became the most famous qira’aat of that time, 422 and the students of knowledge left other qira’aat to study these seven. Eventually, except for three other authentic qira’aat, all the other qira’aat were left, and only these ten were studied."
 Objective analysis. However he can't let his faith stop himself:
This does not imply, however, that somehow a portion of the Qur’aan was lost by preserving only these ten. Many of the qira’aat were merely a mixture of others, so that their loss would not mean a loss of certain pronunciations or words. The Muslims are assured of the fact that they have the complete revelation that Allaah revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), for it is Allaah’s promise to protect it:

“Verily, it is We who have revealed the Qur’aan, and surely We will guard it” (Qur’?n, 15:9)
An argument from ignorance. How does he know these Qiraat were merely a mixture of other existing Qiraat? This is an argument from ignorance. But furthermore in his next section he specifically shows that Qiraat are not merely mixtures of other Qiraat. Qiraat include:
"VIII. The Benefits of the Qira’aat

Since the qira’aat are based on the ahruf, many of the benefits of the qira’aat overlap with those of the ahruf. Some of the benefits are as follows.

1) The facilitation of the memorisation of the Qur’aan. This includes not only differences in pronunciations that the different Arab tribes were used to, but also the differences in words and letters...

4) A further indication of the miraculous nature (‘ijaaz) of the Qur’aan, because these qira’aat add to the meaning and beauty of the Qur’aan in a complementary manner, as shall be shown in the next section...
5) The removal of any stagnation that might exist with regards to the text of the Qur’aan. In other words, there exist various ways and methodologies of recitaing the Qur’aan that are different from each other in pronunciation and meaning, and thus the text remains vibrant and never becomes monotonous."
Even his own criterion of what a Qiraat constitutes show us what was lost was more than pronunciation and words.

Let us summarize so far:
Zawadi uses circular reasoning, he assumes all verses in the readings of the companions (reported in authentic reports) that are not found in today’s readings were “abrogated” by God himself without any direct evidence
Zawadi thinks the variants in the recitation were approved by God, he assumes variants are connected with the modes but offers no evidence since he can't prove his definition of Ahruf. It is the modes that are approved, not the Qiraat.
Zawadi assumes the variations within the verses hold no different meanings and contain no contradictions which is false
Zawadi doesn’t know what Ahruf are so he and his Salafi scholars shouldn’t be running around saying parts of the Ahruf are in the Qiraat. Nor can they make distinctions about what is or is not Ahruf.
Many of the present day Qiraat (recitations/readings) are not Mutawattir or Tawatur, anything not Mutawattir is not Quran
The Ummah failed to preserve all of the Qiraat and hence lost the Ahruf. According to Zawadi’s view this means the parts of the Ahruf that were preserved in those unpreserved lost Qiraat must also be lost. Even if only one harf (mode) of the Quran was preserved in the Uthmanic text, that means parts of this mode have been lost in the lost Qiraat.
Zawadi cannot merely assume 20-70 Qiraat have been “abrogated”, when there is clear evidence the reason why these Qiraat no longer exist is because they were not standardized not because God abrogated them.
If option 1 is accepted, the Qiraat are man made variants. If option 2 is accepted the Qiraat of the Companions are not part of the Ahruf hence the Quran has man made variants. If option 3 is accepted, Uthman constrained the Ahruf in direct contradiction to Allah, Gabriel and the Prophet.

Peace and love!

Assalamu Alaykum brothers.
I've recently been going through the claim that Sana manuscripts are versions of the Quran and prove it's been corrupt so on and so forth. I know brother Osama's general opinion is that if Caliph Uthman r.a would have found these manuscripts they would have been burnt, however, I read in that the manuscripts contain, let's say, two scripts, the inferior one (which is the one that has been washed off, y'know the claim and the reason why) and the superior one. Now, a study performed showed us that the inferior script contained the Quran that was brought down by companions, and we know the story, so this could have pretty well included the variations Uthman r.a wanted to get rid off, BUT the superior script or text, which is the one written above the washed off text, is actually an Uthmanic Tradition. Now, if it's an Uthmanic tradition, why do we find variations. We don't, I know that BUT... This.

Greetings to all,
In Toby Lester's article "What is the Koran?", published in the January 1999
issue of The Atlantic Monthly, a German scholar, Dr. Gerd-R. Puin, played a
prominent role, as he is researching on the old Yemeni Qur'an manuscripts. Since
he felt that his position concerning Qur'an scholarship could be misunderstood
from this article (and especially its various erroneous Arabic translations) he
asked me to share with this list his following paper. He himself has no access
to the Internet and its mailing lists.

Kind regards,
Christoph Heger

Dr. Gerd-R. Puin                                                               
FR 7.2 Orientalistik
Universitaet des Saarlandes
D-66111 Saarbruecken

                                                                January, l999

My position concerning my work on Yemeni Koran fragments:

I have been lucky - and still I am - to study many of the oldest Yemeni Koran
manuscripts written in the most archaic "Hijazi" style. In these I found
variants and peculiarities which are not recorded in the traditional Arabic
books on qira'at (variant readings), or in the books on rasm al-masahif
(orthography of the Koran) nor in those on the ti'dad al-ayat (counting
[systems] of verses). The Hijazi Korans show more variants than those recorded
as the Seven, Ten or Fourteen Readings, they show more patterns of "counting" -
i.e. definitions of what is to be understood as a verse - than the two dozen
"schools" of counting would accept, finally, the sequence of how the surahs were
arranged in early times, was even more variegated than Ibn Nadim's account on
the sequence of surahs in the Korans of Ubayy or Ibn Mas'ud suggests!

If I had not had access to Yamani Koran fragments preserved in the Dar
al-Makhtutat al-Yamaniyyah, San'a', I could have possibly found similar variants
and peculiarities in Hijazi fragments of the Koran kept outside the Yemen in
many libraries or museums, e.g. in France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, or
Kuwait. A most spectacular (complete??) Hijazi Koran can be admired in the
Islamic Museum of Cairo, only a few meters from the entrance, in a special
vitrine to the right of the main route; this treasure is in Egypt since 1300
years or so, but I know of no investigation, of no publication on its

There is, on the Muslims' side, no interest in textual research on the Koran
since 900 years! Except from some western semitists who, from time to time,
detect the etymology of one Koranic expression or another, most of the
Arabists feel reluctant to make up their minds on the genesis of the Koran. The
reason for this kind of negligence is quite clear: Both the Muslims and most of
the Arabists conceive any early deviation from the Koranic scripture (as is
represented by the Cairo print edition) for a lapsus calami, a mere scribal

Yet, if "scribal errors" happen to occur with the same words, more often than
twice, in the same manuscript or even in two or three, then it is common
(philological) sense to look out for a rationale! This is my position: taking
recurrent deviations from the (printed) Koran for serious and not for
insufficiencies of the early scribes! The Koran, being the biggest Arabic text
corpus extant from late antiquity, even in its actual printed edition bears
witness of all stages of orthographic reforms through which the text passed down
to us. I feel confident that an insight into the development of Koranic
orthography will at least lead to a different notion of the text in some cases,
and to a better understanding in many many more passages. This will not, I'm
afraid, bring about the breakthrough in the understanding of the Koran, but it
might contribute to show that the Koran has a history, not only in the sense of
asbab al-nuzul ("causes for revelation"). The breakthrough might come along with
the answer upon the question: What is the language of the Koran? Meanwhile, I
stick to the manuscripts.

Dr. Gerd-R. Puin

I found this particular article in a Google Group posted by the Dr. mentioned at the top.
What's bothering me is this "...  In these I found
variants and peculiarities which are not recorded in the traditional Arabic
books on qira'at (variant readings), or in the books on rasm al-masahif
(orthography of the Koran) nor in those on the ti'dad al-ayat (counting
[systems] of verses). The Hijazi Korans show more variants than those recorded
as the Seven, Ten or Fourteen Readings, they show more patterns of "counting" -
i.e. definitions of what is to be understood as a verse - than the two dozen
"schools" of counting would accept, finally, the sequence of how the surahs were
arranged in early times, was even more variegated than Ibn Nadim's account on
the sequence of surahs in the Korans of Ubayy or Ibn Mas'ud suggests!...."

How true is this? Did Puin really say these? Is there a refutation.
I know we've dealt with the Sana manuscripts a long time ago, but if these points are indeed present, do they affect the integrity or meaning, respectively teaching of the Qur'an?
As for the inferior/superior text refer to :

I apologize for the strikethroughs, could not get rid of them.

« on: November 06, 2016, 11:06:49 AM »
Assalamu alaykum.
Well practically this
I need a refutation. Like why the Prophet SAWS. cannot be a demon or cannot be linked and associated with that particular demon and that demonic religion practically Mahamada in general. Please read carefully. God bless!

« on: September 05, 2016, 07:37:16 AM »
Assalamu Alaykum.
So I was going through Answering Christianity and came across this :

Now, brother Sami Zataari clearly refuted the lie that the Qur'an contains no miracles, however, what I was wondering was, does the bible really contain miracles? Or is it another christian missionary lie?

I also wanted to ask about this
So now, was Prophet Muhammad (saws) illiterate or not? Please explain.

And lastly, what is your opinion on the Embryological Miracles in the Qur'an, I mean, it really cannot be seen without a microscope, but skeptics are rising and are causing me to kinda worry.

Peace and love, God bless.

« on: August 23, 2016, 02:07:19 PM »
Assalamu Alaykum everyone!
I'm new to the forum, been wanting to join for a long time. I was browsing the net the other day and I came across this video of the deceitful, desperate and pathetic liar David Wood called "5 Reasons why the Qur'an cannot be the word of God" or something. Well, I did do some research into the topic and I found out that almost everything he said was taken out of context and he completely misinterpreted things, however, I would really really love for someone from the forum to somehow reply with a brief yet informative rebuttal to the vid.

Link of the vid:

Thank you everyone, and may Allah be with you./
Peace :D

Pages: [1]

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube