In response to your last post on top of this page I submit the following.
Actually I did not miss or "failed to notice" your comments on Ali ibn Abi Talib. Since the link was about Ali ibn Abi Talib, I did not think it was appropriate to divert from the subject of this thread.
What you highlighted from the article from Sunnah.org about Ali ibn Abi Talib is in abridged form and also does not cite any reference or sources. You think that it is from Nahjul Balaga. It may be so and if it is then you have to quote it from their with references and read it in its proper context. Do you think there is a better community when Allah has purified the Ahle Bayt.
There have been many an instances when the Prophet of Allah hinted at the successorship of Ali as the leader after him and they are in your history books as well. The Prophet was very specific when he declared Ali as the mowla of the believers just like he has been. I can give you tons of references from your own sources but then we will be going in circles and this debate will never end. It hasn't for 1400 years. That is why my Imam wants to put an end to it by accepting the Khilafat of the first three and like I said in my earlier post we should leave it at that. If you still insist then go ahead and open up a separate thread about Ali's right to successorship and we will debate there.
Sahabae Karam and their conspiracies
http://blog.dawn.com:91/dblog/2009/10/0 ... s-forward/
The backwards forward
Posted by Nadeem F. Paracha in Featured Articles on 10 1st, 2009 | 34 responses
There is an informative debate show on a local private channel called Alif. The show is mostly about the various philosophies of Islam and their place in Pakistan and rest of the Muslim world. A moderator usually invites up to four intellectuals every week, with two of them usually being ‘moderate’ in outlook while the other two guests hold a more conservative view on the discussed topic.
Even though it is one of the more academically sound Islamic programmes compared to the myopic disasters viewers are bombarded with in this respect, Alif almost always ends up hitting an intellectual dead-end.
The reason for this is the common consensus Muslim scholars of all shades have had on the traditional version of Islamic history. So no mater how diverse their views and interpretations of what constitutes Islamic philosophy and law, they all usually end up with almost exactly the same agreement on Islamic traditions that emerged some time in the late ninth and early tenth centuries, after which the ‘gates of ijtihad’ were said to be closed.
However, many modern Islamic scholars have now started to point out that the roots of political and social problems that the Muslim communities started to face after Muslim imperialism began its decline after the eighteenth century can be traced to the laws, politics and social bearings constructed from the pitfalls of the consensus reached among various Islamic schools of thought on what constitutes Islamic history and tradition.
They believe that this history and the traditions that it cemented stopped being investigated critically and thus ended up creating gaping misconceptions and leaps of logic about what Islam meant and how it was practiced during the Prophet’s time.
In other words, the history of early Islam that is taught to every Muslim child and is taken as the primary source by almost all Muslim scholars and historians was never put to any serious intellectual test and modern investigative methods.
On the other hand, western historians, while investigating the theological history of early Christianity, tried to a understand the ‘historical Jesus’ in place of the ‘theological Jesus’ whom they discovered (and claim) was different from his historical self.
The theological Jesus, they figured, had very little to do with the actual events in history and was more a creation of Christian priests and scholars who appeared almost two generations after Jesus. According to these historians, the theological version of Jesus was formed for political and evangelical reasons in which the person of Jesus was exaggerated and his personality molded according to social and political norms and nuances of the time when early Christian priests were formulating the personality of Jesus through their exegeses of the Bible and the Gospels.
Early Islamic history has hardly ever been treated and investigated in this manner. Some early attempts were made between the fourteenth and nineteenth centuries, but these attempts were largely the work of Christian apologists who failed to take an unbiased and objective view of the subject and generated their work more as a way to pitch the ‘authenticity of Christian history’ against that of Islam.
However, in the twentieth century, small groups of secular European academics and scholars picked up the pieces and started to investigate early Islamic history using the academic methods historians and anthropologists use to study non-theological history. So far the results have been startling, and many progressive Muslim scholars and historians too have agreed to some of what the rigorous investigations and secular study of early Islamic history has generated.
The most controversial among the investigators was the late Dr John Wansbrough, a leading historian and researcher at London’s prestigious SOAS institute. Though controversial, Wansbrough triggered an academic wave in which a number of respected historians and scholars started studying early Islamic history with the same academic and investigative tools with which historians study the historical context of the Bible and with which general history is studied and its authenticity determined. Wansbrough was at once criticised by Muslim academia for undermining the importance of primary Muslim sources in his study.
Other leading historians in this respect have been Prof. Patricia Crone, Martin Hinds, Michael Cook and Prof. G R. Hawting – people whose critical look at early Islamic history has been largely respected by a number of modern Islamic scholars.
The meeting point where these western academics and many progressive Muslim scholars have managed to reach is the fact that almost all early Islamic history is based on just a single complete biography written on the life of the Prophet. It appeared in 750 CE (by Ibn Ishaq), or about a century and a half after the demise of the Prophet. In fact, this biography has only survived in the writings of Ibn Hisham, who wrote a biography of the Prophet in early ninth Century.
Modern western and Muslim scholars now believe that the accuracy of these biographies is unascertainable because instead of any written documents, Ishaq and Hisham used memorised accounts of the life of Prophet Muhammad (hadiths) as sources.
Historians now view the hadiths with caution, insisting that they cannot be taken as accurate historical sources because they first started to be documented more than a century after the Prophet’s demise.
The reason why early biographers of the Prophet, and early Islamic lawmakers who used hadith accounts to formulate the shariah, could not use any tangible written documents (other than the Qu’ran) was that even a hundred years after the demise of the Prophet there were almost no documented Muslim sources at all about early Islam. Ibn Ishaq’s biography is the only surviving source (written 130 years after the Prophet).
Modern Muslim and western scholarship studying Islam believes that Islam’s progressive evolution was mutated and it became increasingly static after ulema started to compare the human condition of their time with a rather romanticised version of Islam’s early history that was constructed purely on memorised accounts. Accounts that were first put to writing more than a century after the Prophet are likely to have gone through various lapses.
Scholars like Wansbrough, Crone, Hinds, Prof. Ziauddin Sardar, Mohammad Arkoun, and authors such as Irshan Manji, Sumanto Al Qurtuby, and Rashad Khalifa believe most of these memorised accounts of the Prophet and of life under the first four Caliphs were documented more than a century after the Prophet’s demise and then ‘projected back to the time of the Prophet.’
The reason to do so were largely political because at the time Islam was a rapidly expanding imperialist force and needed a politico-religious anchor, especially in the conquered lands that had different (or opposing) faiths as dominant religions.
This tradition was carried across all major stages of Muslim imperialism and the Islamic doctrines were further expanded through scholarly assumptions about life under the Prophet and the ‘rightly guided Caliphs.’ The hadith remained the primary source.
At the decline of Muslim imperialism some time in the late eigteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries, the narratives on which much of Islamic history, philosophy and law were constructed during the imperial phase started to seem static, especially in the face of former Muslim powers coming under waves of western imperialism.
Islamic Scholars and leaders appealed for a return to the basics in an attempt to reform Islam and Muslim societies that they now thought had been ‘adulterated’ by their long imperialist exposure to the rituals of other religions.
The hadith still played the primary role in this respect, but many reformist scholars and leaders now chose the more conservative hadiths to transform Islamic law into a harsher article of faith and legislation, believing these would help Muslim societies ‘retain their true identities’ under western imperialism.
That said, there were also reformists who found Imperialist Islamic dictates to have become static and decadent and they wanted to ‘modernise’ Islam by trying to adopt modern western laws and technology.
But since both these strains of Muslim reformists continued appealing to the nostalgia of Islamic imperialism’s heyday, and to the more mythical narratives of ‘perfect Islam’ under the four ‘Rightly Guided Caliphs,’ the historical and legislative doctrines of Islam based on the conservative reformists’ views managed to bag a more attentive audience in Muslim societies. It is out of these doctrines that concepts like Political Islam would eventually emerge. A concept whose more retarded strains are what we now call Islamic militancy and ‘Islamo-fascism.’
Interestingly, Islamic reformists too continued to draw their legislative, political and historical conclusions from eighth- and ninth-century hearsay accounts as if modern society was still responding to medieval impulses.
Consequently, even today many Muslim historians and lawmakers carry on defining the shariah and Islamic history using a history constructed from memorised and backwardly projected accounts of the Prophet.
Most progressive Muslim scholars however, have pleaded for a more investigative look at Islam’s early history without the use of eighth- and ninth-century perspectives. To do that they beseech the need to be much more cautious about memorised accounts based on simple hearsay. They say that the hadith should be used watchfully and, perhaps, only when it supports or expands the teachings of the Qur’an and not as a legislative response to the political and social dynamics of modernity that can only leave Muslim societies hanging in a limbo between mythical historical narratives and modern material impulses.
nadeem_80x802 Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.
The backwards forward
Posted by Nadeem F. Paracha in Featured Articles on 10 1st, 2009 | 34 responses
There is an informative debate show on a local private channel called Alif. The show is mostly about the various philosophies of Islam and their place in Pakistan and rest of the Muslim world. A moderator usually invites up to four intellectuals every week, with two of them usually being ‘moderate’ in outlook while the other two guests hold a more conservative view on the discussed topic.
Even though it is one of the more academically sound Islamic programmes compared to the myopic disasters viewers are bombarded with in this respect, Alif almost always ends up hitting an intellectual dead-end.
The reason for this is the common consensus Muslim scholars of all shades have had on the traditional version of Islamic history. So no mater how diverse their views and interpretations of what constitutes Islamic philosophy and law, they all usually end up with almost exactly the same agreement on Islamic traditions that emerged some time in the late ninth and early tenth centuries, after which the ‘gates of ijtihad’ were said to be closed.
However, many modern Islamic scholars have now started to point out that the roots of political and social problems that the Muslim communities started to face after Muslim imperialism began its decline after the eighteenth century can be traced to the laws, politics and social bearings constructed from the pitfalls of the consensus reached among various Islamic schools of thought on what constitutes Islamic history and tradition.
They believe that this history and the traditions that it cemented stopped being investigated critically and thus ended up creating gaping misconceptions and leaps of logic about what Islam meant and how it was practiced during the Prophet’s time.
In other words, the history of early Islam that is taught to every Muslim child and is taken as the primary source by almost all Muslim scholars and historians was never put to any serious intellectual test and modern investigative methods.
On the other hand, western historians, while investigating the theological history of early Christianity, tried to a understand the ‘historical Jesus’ in place of the ‘theological Jesus’ whom they discovered (and claim) was different from his historical self.
The theological Jesus, they figured, had very little to do with the actual events in history and was more a creation of Christian priests and scholars who appeared almost two generations after Jesus. According to these historians, the theological version of Jesus was formed for political and evangelical reasons in which the person of Jesus was exaggerated and his personality molded according to social and political norms and nuances of the time when early Christian priests were formulating the personality of Jesus through their exegeses of the Bible and the Gospels.
Early Islamic history has hardly ever been treated and investigated in this manner. Some early attempts were made between the fourteenth and nineteenth centuries, but these attempts were largely the work of Christian apologists who failed to take an unbiased and objective view of the subject and generated their work more as a way to pitch the ‘authenticity of Christian history’ against that of Islam.
However, in the twentieth century, small groups of secular European academics and scholars picked up the pieces and started to investigate early Islamic history using the academic methods historians and anthropologists use to study non-theological history. So far the results have been startling, and many progressive Muslim scholars and historians too have agreed to some of what the rigorous investigations and secular study of early Islamic history has generated.
The most controversial among the investigators was the late Dr John Wansbrough, a leading historian and researcher at London’s prestigious SOAS institute. Though controversial, Wansbrough triggered an academic wave in which a number of respected historians and scholars started studying early Islamic history with the same academic and investigative tools with which historians study the historical context of the Bible and with which general history is studied and its authenticity determined. Wansbrough was at once criticised by Muslim academia for undermining the importance of primary Muslim sources in his study.
Other leading historians in this respect have been Prof. Patricia Crone, Martin Hinds, Michael Cook and Prof. G R. Hawting – people whose critical look at early Islamic history has been largely respected by a number of modern Islamic scholars.
The meeting point where these western academics and many progressive Muslim scholars have managed to reach is the fact that almost all early Islamic history is based on just a single complete biography written on the life of the Prophet. It appeared in 750 CE (by Ibn Ishaq), or about a century and a half after the demise of the Prophet. In fact, this biography has only survived in the writings of Ibn Hisham, who wrote a biography of the Prophet in early ninth Century.
Modern western and Muslim scholars now believe that the accuracy of these biographies is unascertainable because instead of any written documents, Ishaq and Hisham used memorised accounts of the life of Prophet Muhammad (hadiths) as sources.
Historians now view the hadiths with caution, insisting that they cannot be taken as accurate historical sources because they first started to be documented more than a century after the Prophet’s demise.
The reason why early biographers of the Prophet, and early Islamic lawmakers who used hadith accounts to formulate the shariah, could not use any tangible written documents (other than the Qu’ran) was that even a hundred years after the demise of the Prophet there were almost no documented Muslim sources at all about early Islam. Ibn Ishaq’s biography is the only surviving source (written 130 years after the Prophet).
Modern Muslim and western scholarship studying Islam believes that Islam’s progressive evolution was mutated and it became increasingly static after ulema started to compare the human condition of their time with a rather romanticised version of Islam’s early history that was constructed purely on memorised accounts. Accounts that were first put to writing more than a century after the Prophet are likely to have gone through various lapses.
Scholars like Wansbrough, Crone, Hinds, Prof. Ziauddin Sardar, Mohammad Arkoun, and authors such as Irshan Manji, Sumanto Al Qurtuby, and Rashad Khalifa believe most of these memorised accounts of the Prophet and of life under the first four Caliphs were documented more than a century after the Prophet’s demise and then ‘projected back to the time of the Prophet.’
The reason to do so were largely political because at the time Islam was a rapidly expanding imperialist force and needed a politico-religious anchor, especially in the conquered lands that had different (or opposing) faiths as dominant religions.
This tradition was carried across all major stages of Muslim imperialism and the Islamic doctrines were further expanded through scholarly assumptions about life under the Prophet and the ‘rightly guided Caliphs.’ The hadith remained the primary source.
At the decline of Muslim imperialism some time in the late eigteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries, the narratives on which much of Islamic history, philosophy and law were constructed during the imperial phase started to seem static, especially in the face of former Muslim powers coming under waves of western imperialism.
Islamic Scholars and leaders appealed for a return to the basics in an attempt to reform Islam and Muslim societies that they now thought had been ‘adulterated’ by their long imperialist exposure to the rituals of other religions.
The hadith still played the primary role in this respect, but many reformist scholars and leaders now chose the more conservative hadiths to transform Islamic law into a harsher article of faith and legislation, believing these would help Muslim societies ‘retain their true identities’ under western imperialism.
That said, there were also reformists who found Imperialist Islamic dictates to have become static and decadent and they wanted to ‘modernise’ Islam by trying to adopt modern western laws and technology.
But since both these strains of Muslim reformists continued appealing to the nostalgia of Islamic imperialism’s heyday, and to the more mythical narratives of ‘perfect Islam’ under the four ‘Rightly Guided Caliphs,’ the historical and legislative doctrines of Islam based on the conservative reformists’ views managed to bag a more attentive audience in Muslim societies. It is out of these doctrines that concepts like Political Islam would eventually emerge. A concept whose more retarded strains are what we now call Islamic militancy and ‘Islamo-fascism.’
Interestingly, Islamic reformists too continued to draw their legislative, political and historical conclusions from eighth- and ninth-century hearsay accounts as if modern society was still responding to medieval impulses.
Consequently, even today many Muslim historians and lawmakers carry on defining the shariah and Islamic history using a history constructed from memorised and backwardly projected accounts of the Prophet.
Most progressive Muslim scholars however, have pleaded for a more investigative look at Islam’s early history without the use of eighth- and ninth-century perspectives. To do that they beseech the need to be much more cautious about memorised accounts based on simple hearsay. They say that the hadith should be used watchfully and, perhaps, only when it supports or expands the teachings of the Qur’an and not as a legislative response to the political and social dynamics of modernity that can only leave Muslim societies hanging in a limbo between mythical historical narratives and modern material impulses.
nadeem_80x802 Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
If there was something important to be said, it would have been conveyed, as Allah stated that the deen was perfected (Quran - 5:4). Hence, if there was something left out, it would not have been perfected.Admin wrote:It is mentionned in Bukhari that the Prophet [PBUH] wanted to write his last will before he died but was stopped from it. He was sick and out of strenght, he keept asking for something to write but was stopped to do that.
No doubt he wanted to write something which he knew the Muslims will not do if it was not written, since everything else had been said and done.
This is part of Muslim history, we have to recognised that it is part of the history.
Denying does not sere any purpose other then those of the ones that stopped him from writing.
Also, was not the Prophet (upon whom be peace) illiterate? How could he have written something down if he could not read or write?
I believe that in all secondary documents of Islam, there is an element of human error, either from mistake or others having their own agenda to create mischief or disunity.
The only document which does not contain discrepancies is the Glorious Qur'an.
4:82. Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
So you're above statement tells us that you know more than Imam SMS.arshad1988 wrote:If there was something important to be said, it would have been conveyed, as Allah stated that the deen was perfected (Quran - 5:4). Hence, if there was something left out, it would not have been perfected.Admin wrote:It is mentionned in Bukhari that the Prophet [PBUH] wanted to write his last will before he died but was stopped from it. He was sick and out of strenght, he keept asking for something to write but was stopped to do that.
No doubt he wanted to write something which he knew the Muslims will not do if it was not written, since everything else had been said and done.
This is part of Muslim history, we have to recognised that it is part of the history.
Denying does not sere any purpose other then those of the ones that stopped him from writing.
Also, was not the Prophet (upon whom be peace) illiterate? How could he have written something down if he could not read or write?
I believe that in all secondary documents of Islam, there is an element of human error, either from mistake or others having their own agenda to create mischief or disunity.
The only document which does not contain discrepancies is the Glorious Qur'an.
4:82. Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
You should refer to farmans made in Zanzibar in 1899 which categorically answer this question.
Shams
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
I think the Farman being referred to is:arshad1988 wrote:1) I don't have access to any of those firmans.
2) Is there something wrong with my reasoning? Does it seem illogical? I have used the primary source of Islam as supporting evidence, one which is the unifying factor of the ummah.
"Those who show partiality and try to favour somebody, then they will become ignorant like those who having brought about alterations in the Quran created discord in religion after the demise of Prophet Muhamad."(Zanzibar, 14 September 1905)
It is quite apparent that the Quran was tampered with but in the spirit of reconciliation and unity of the Umma, the present version has been accepted. There are apparent discrepancies in the Quran, but these are reconciled through the agency of the Imams. Without the Imamat, the religion remains imperfect....
According to Mowlana Rumi, the Prophet was unlettered in the sense that his knowledge was not acquired but was innate.
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
This was the farman where MSMS stated that the Quran is incomplete due to Uthman.kmaherali wrote:I think the Farman being referred to is:arshad1988 wrote:1) I don't have access to any of those firmans.
2) Is there something wrong with my reasoning? Does it seem illogical? I have used the primary source of Islam as supporting evidence, one which is the unifying factor of the ummah.
"Those who show partiality and try to favour somebody, then they will become ignorant like those who having brought about alterations in the Quran created discord in religion after the demise of Prophet Muhamad."(Zanzibar, 14 September 1905)
It is quite apparent that the Quran was tampered with but in the spirit of reconciliation and unity of the Umma, the present version has been accepted. There are apparent discrepancies in the Quran, but these are reconciled through the agency of the Imams. Without the Imamat, the religion remains imperfect....
According to Mowlana Rumi, the Prophet was unlettered in the sense that his knowledge was not acquired but was innate.
Shams
It is very apparent - one..it's not organized in chronological order...arshad1988 wrote:How is it apparent that it was tampered with, and that there are discrepancies?
Could you please give examples?
the longer surah's are at the front the shorter ones at the back..as a lay reader - someone from the street how are you going to know which sura came first - which later..? which instruction overrode the other?
for me..the Farman of the Imam is sufficient..no proofs are needed..however you can find sources that do speak to this.
If you're so inclined - feel free to reach out to Columbia University - they do teach a Master's Level course on the Quran and they might have it online as well - where they speak to different schools of thought on the completeness in the Quran.
Please understand that what I am stating is that the Quran is missing surahs - either lost due to the death of the person that memorized it or the pieces of leather or papyrus that it was written on were lost...or removed by Caliph Uthman due to political intrigue....
here's a website with a lot more information...
http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/ ... quran.html
By virtue of the Farman of the Imam. To Ismailis, the Farman of the Imam is authoritative and binding.arshad1988 wrote:How is it apparent that it was tampered with, and that there are discrepancies?
Could you please give examples?
As mentioned by Shams, some verses were abrogated in favour of others, which in absence of any chronological pattern can present apparent discrepancies...
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things? (2:106)
Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower. (6:115)
Allah effaceth what He will, and establisheth (what He will), and with Him is the source of ordinance. (13:039)
And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not. (16:101)
And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him. (18:927)
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
I don't have enough knowledge in regards to the subject of abrogation, so I cannot make any claims in regards to it. However, my belief is that there is no such thing.
There is yet to be put an example of a discrepancy. Just because a work is not in chronological order, does not prove its incompleteness or being tampered with. It is put in a divine order.
75:17 It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it
One that reads the Qur'an cannot make a conclusion that it is incomplete. I would like you to give actual discrepancies in regards to its content.
Shams, the source you have given me uses the secondary sources, which were compiled centuries after the Prophet's (pbuh) demise, and hence anything that goes against the basic principles of the Qur'an are to be neglected. How can it be trusted more than the document that was compiled during the Prophet's(pbuh) time?
There is yet to be put an example of a discrepancy. Just because a work is not in chronological order, does not prove its incompleteness or being tampered with. It is put in a divine order.
75:17 It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it
One that reads the Qur'an cannot make a conclusion that it is incomplete. I would like you to give actual discrepancies in regards to its content.
Shams, the source you have given me uses the secondary sources, which were compiled centuries after the Prophet's (pbuh) demise, and hence anything that goes against the basic principles of the Qur'an are to be neglected. How can it be trusted more than the document that was compiled during the Prophet's(pbuh) time?
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
The Arrangement of Verses and Chapters in the Qur'an
"The responsibility of its collection and its arrangement lies on Us" (75:17)
The word Jama‘ in the Arabic text of the verse above implies both collection and arrangement, which is a process quite different from the revelation. It is not true that the verses and chapters of the Holy Qur’ân were arranged after the death of the Holy Prophet by someone else, or that they were arranged in the order of their length; the longest coming first and the shortest last. It is also wrong to say that within the chapters the passages are joined together without any regard to either chronology of revelation or similarity of subject, and that most heterogeneous materials are put together without any regard to logical sequence.
The whole Qur’ân, complete in every respect, was available in the Holy Prophet’s life time (Caetani, 2:384). The Companions of the Holy Prophet say, ‘We used to write down the Holy Qur’ân in the time of the Holy Prophet’ (Hâkim: Al-Mustadrik, 2:611). The arrangement of chapters and verses in the copies of the Holy Qur’ân at present in our hands does not follow the chronological order of revelation and their arrangement is Tauqif, i.e. effected by the Holy Prophet under the guidance of Divine revelations (75:17-18). And whenever a revelation came, the scribes were called and ‘…the Prophet told his scribes where to place a particular verse that was just revealed.’(Abu Dawood, At-Tirmidhî). It is also said in the Holy Qur’ân:
"(But We have revealed it) in this manner (- piece by piece out of necessity). And (in spite of the fact that it has not been revealed all at once,) We have arranged it in an excellent (form and order of) arrangement (and free of all contradictions) "(25:32).
The concise phrase Rattalnâ-hu-Tartîlan in the above verse comprises the parallel concept of putting the component parts of a thing together and arranging them well, as well as endowing it with inner consistency. The word Tartîl refers to the measured diction and the thoughtful manner in which it ought to be enunciated. Thus, from the very first, it was meant that the verses and the chapters of the Holy Scripture should be arranged in an order different from that of their revelation, otherwise the revelation and the collection and arrangement would not have been described as two different things.
There was an arrangement followed by the Holy Prophet and we know that many Companions of the Holy Prophet committed the Holy Qur’ân to memory and could recite it in the recognized order as followed by the Prophet. This shows that there was a connection of its verses and chapters, and there was a recognized division of the Book and a fixed form and sequence. The chapters were distinctly marked out and their number was determined. Without a known order and sequence of verses, the Qur’ân could not have been committed to memory. The present arrangement of the Qur’ân does not differ from that followed by the Holy Prophet. There are several sayings of the Holy Prophet from which this can be inferred. The Holy Prophet said, ‘Whoever reads the last two verses of the chapter entitled Baqarah on any night, they are sufficient for him’ (Bukhârî; 64:12). This shows that the Holy Prophet followed an arrangement which he had made known to his Companions. If such had not been the case he could not have referred to two verses as the ‘last’ two verses of a certain chapter. According to another saying of the Holy Prophet he told his Companions to recite the first ten and last ten verses of the chapter entitled Al-Kahf on a particular occasion. Had there been no sequence of verses, ‘the first ten verses and last ten verses’ would have been a meaningless phrase. Not only the verses of the Holy Qur’ân but even its chapters were arranged by the Holy Prophet himself. This is afforded by the following saying of Anas: ‘At the time when the Banû Thaqîf accepted Islam, I was in that delegation. The Holy Prophet said to us, 'When you people came to meet me, I was reciting my portion of the Holy Qur’ân which I used to recite daily, so I decided not to go out until I had finished it.' Thereupon we questioned the Companions of the Holy Prophet as to how they divided the Holy Qur’ân into portions for reading. They said, “We observe the following divisions, 3 chapters, 5 chapters, 7 chapters, 9 chapters, 11 chapters and 13 chapters, and all the remaining chapters beginning with chapter entitled Qâf’ (Fath al-Bârî, 9:39). This form of reading divided the Qur’ân into seven portions or Ahzâb, each portion to be recited in one day and, thus, the recital of the whole Qur’ân (114 chapters) was finished in seven days. This report of Anas shows an arrangement of chapters which is observed to this day by the whole MuslimUmmah. This and many other reports by the Companions of the Prophet give conclusive testimony to the fact that the form and arrangement of the chapters of the Holy Book was brought about by the Holy Prophet himself, and that the present arrangement does not differ in the least from the original of the time of the Prophet.
The efforts of some European scholars such as Well, Nöldecke, Muir, Rodwell and others such as N. J. Dawood to rearrange the Holy Qur'ân are misleading and are unworthy of being considered as scholarly.
http://www.islam-info.ch/en/Arrangement ... _Quran.htm
"The responsibility of its collection and its arrangement lies on Us" (75:17)
The word Jama‘ in the Arabic text of the verse above implies both collection and arrangement, which is a process quite different from the revelation. It is not true that the verses and chapters of the Holy Qur’ân were arranged after the death of the Holy Prophet by someone else, or that they were arranged in the order of their length; the longest coming first and the shortest last. It is also wrong to say that within the chapters the passages are joined together without any regard to either chronology of revelation or similarity of subject, and that most heterogeneous materials are put together without any regard to logical sequence.
The whole Qur’ân, complete in every respect, was available in the Holy Prophet’s life time (Caetani, 2:384). The Companions of the Holy Prophet say, ‘We used to write down the Holy Qur’ân in the time of the Holy Prophet’ (Hâkim: Al-Mustadrik, 2:611). The arrangement of chapters and verses in the copies of the Holy Qur’ân at present in our hands does not follow the chronological order of revelation and their arrangement is Tauqif, i.e. effected by the Holy Prophet under the guidance of Divine revelations (75:17-18). And whenever a revelation came, the scribes were called and ‘…the Prophet told his scribes where to place a particular verse that was just revealed.’(Abu Dawood, At-Tirmidhî). It is also said in the Holy Qur’ân:
"(But We have revealed it) in this manner (- piece by piece out of necessity). And (in spite of the fact that it has not been revealed all at once,) We have arranged it in an excellent (form and order of) arrangement (and free of all contradictions) "(25:32).
The concise phrase Rattalnâ-hu-Tartîlan in the above verse comprises the parallel concept of putting the component parts of a thing together and arranging them well, as well as endowing it with inner consistency. The word Tartîl refers to the measured diction and the thoughtful manner in which it ought to be enunciated. Thus, from the very first, it was meant that the verses and the chapters of the Holy Scripture should be arranged in an order different from that of their revelation, otherwise the revelation and the collection and arrangement would not have been described as two different things.
There was an arrangement followed by the Holy Prophet and we know that many Companions of the Holy Prophet committed the Holy Qur’ân to memory and could recite it in the recognized order as followed by the Prophet. This shows that there was a connection of its verses and chapters, and there was a recognized division of the Book and a fixed form and sequence. The chapters were distinctly marked out and their number was determined. Without a known order and sequence of verses, the Qur’ân could not have been committed to memory. The present arrangement of the Qur’ân does not differ from that followed by the Holy Prophet. There are several sayings of the Holy Prophet from which this can be inferred. The Holy Prophet said, ‘Whoever reads the last two verses of the chapter entitled Baqarah on any night, they are sufficient for him’ (Bukhârî; 64:12). This shows that the Holy Prophet followed an arrangement which he had made known to his Companions. If such had not been the case he could not have referred to two verses as the ‘last’ two verses of a certain chapter. According to another saying of the Holy Prophet he told his Companions to recite the first ten and last ten verses of the chapter entitled Al-Kahf on a particular occasion. Had there been no sequence of verses, ‘the first ten verses and last ten verses’ would have been a meaningless phrase. Not only the verses of the Holy Qur’ân but even its chapters were arranged by the Holy Prophet himself. This is afforded by the following saying of Anas: ‘At the time when the Banû Thaqîf accepted Islam, I was in that delegation. The Holy Prophet said to us, 'When you people came to meet me, I was reciting my portion of the Holy Qur’ân which I used to recite daily, so I decided not to go out until I had finished it.' Thereupon we questioned the Companions of the Holy Prophet as to how they divided the Holy Qur’ân into portions for reading. They said, “We observe the following divisions, 3 chapters, 5 chapters, 7 chapters, 9 chapters, 11 chapters and 13 chapters, and all the remaining chapters beginning with chapter entitled Qâf’ (Fath al-Bârî, 9:39). This form of reading divided the Qur’ân into seven portions or Ahzâb, each portion to be recited in one day and, thus, the recital of the whole Qur’ân (114 chapters) was finished in seven days. This report of Anas shows an arrangement of chapters which is observed to this day by the whole MuslimUmmah. This and many other reports by the Companions of the Prophet give conclusive testimony to the fact that the form and arrangement of the chapters of the Holy Book was brought about by the Holy Prophet himself, and that the present arrangement does not differ in the least from the original of the time of the Prophet.
The efforts of some European scholars such as Well, Nöldecke, Muir, Rodwell and others such as N. J. Dawood to rearrange the Holy Qur'ân are misleading and are unworthy of being considered as scholarly.
http://www.islam-info.ch/en/Arrangement ... _Quran.htm
I just quoted verses from the Quran about abrogation which to you is the most important document. I did not invent it. If the Quran says that there are verses that are abrogated, then how are we to know which ones they are? Doesn't that present a descrepancy. I gave you examples of the descrepancies.arshad1988 wrote:I don't have enough knowledge in regards to the subject of abrogation, so I cannot make any claims in regards to it. However, my belief is that there is no such thing.
There is yet to be put an example of a discrepancy. Just because a work is not in chronological order, does not prove its incompleteness or being tampered with. It is put in a divine order.
75:17 It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it
One that reads the Qur'an cannot make a conclusion that it is incomplete. I would like you to give actual discrepancies in regards to its content.
The Imam says that it is tampered with. The Lack fo chronology presents confusion....
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
The abrogation refers to verses and not the entire revelation. Below is an article from Cyril Glasse's The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam.arshad1988 wrote:These verses which you say are of abrogation refer to the Qur'an as a form of revelation replacing the earlier revelations such as Injil, Torah, etc. not the verses within the Qur'an itself. The principles of revelation remain the same, however its form has varied.
Naskh (lit. "deletion", "abrogation" or "copying", "transcription"). The principle by which certain verses of the Koran abrogate (or modify) others, which are then called mansukh ("revoked"). What is generally at issue is the modification of a universal meaning by a more specific one, a modification caused by an historic change of circumstance. It is also a question of the "style" natural to a Divine revelation, which cannot speak with clauses, exceptions and qualifications in the manner of a legal document, but must he direct and absolute. One set of such direct and absolute statements may condition another set of direct and absolute statements which are thereby rendered mansukh, or conditional; the original statement is not untrue, but is subordinated to another which is more immediately relevant. In this way, by naskh, or self-limitation, the "absoluteness" of the Koran accommodates itself to the relativities of the human situation. The Koran itself speaks of the principle in 2:106 and 16:101.
In any case I gave you an example of descrepancy: verse 2:106 states that there are verses that are abrogated and verse 6:115 states that no one can alter the words.
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
There are some that believe in this doctrine. In my opinion, it was started due to mischief. However, there are also others which believe that this is a fallacy in respect to verses within the Qur'an. The word 'ayat' in the verse you provided refers to the revelations, not the particular verses in the Qur'an, like I said.
The Lie Of Quranic Abrogation
The biggest lie against the Quran - Part 1
By - A. Muhammad
The abrogation of Quranic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.
According to this concept, it is claimed that some verses in the Quran are abrogated and invalidated by other verses!
The verse that is the abrogator they call (Al-Nasekh) while the abrogated verse they call (Al-Mansoukh).
These scholars have come up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they have formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references.
Although the concept was originally invented by Muslim scholars as a result of their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it has been widely exploited by anti-Quranic writers to tarnish the perfection and divinity of the book.
Abrogations or Contradictions?
As mentioned, the abrogation concept implies that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the anti-Quranic writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.
It is noted that the examples used by Muslim scholars as ‘abrogated verses’ are not always the verses used by non-Muslim writers and which they simply refer to as ‘contradictions in the Quran’.
Although it can be said that the common aspect shared by the two groups is their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it can also be added that in the case of the non-Muslim writers, and particularly those who do not speak Arabic, we often find many of their claims for contradictions to be a product of their acquisition of corrupted and misleading translations of the Quran.
Both of these types of false claims can be dealt with in the light of the Quran. It can be demonstrated that these claims are no more than cases of poor understanding of the book.
Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars
11:1 A.L.R, a Scripture whose verses have been made governing, then detailed, from One who is Wise, Expert.
10:64 For them are glad tidings in the worldly life and in the Hereafter. There is no changing the words of God. Such is the great success
These Quranic state clearly that God's words have been perfected and cannot be abrogated, yet sadly these Muslim scholars have invented the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses.
They base their claim on a corrupted interpretation of two verses:
FIRST VERSE 2:106
"Whichever Ayah We nansakh or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106
What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret Ayah in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran. And they interpret the word nansakh as to mean to abrogate. But does that word as used in the Quran truly mean abrogate?
Here we have to examine the correct meanings of both words: "nansakh" and "ayat" as used by God in 2:106
First: The word "ayat"
The word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:
a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:
"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayahs (miracles)." 17:101
b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:
"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people."25:37
c- The word ‘Ayah’ can also mean a sign as in:
"He said, ‘My Lord, give me an Ayah (sign).’ He said, ‘Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10
d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:
"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its Ayat (verses)." 38:29
Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, it can easily be verified that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:
The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.
The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!
If the word ‘Ayah’ in verse 106 meant a miracle, an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten"can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.
Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :
"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah’s (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayah’s they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48
Second: The word "nansakh"
The word "nansakh" which is used in 2:106 comes from the verb "nasakha". It has been claimed that this word in 2:106 means abrogate. However, on closer inspection of all the Quranic verses which use this word it can be found that this word means quite the opposite. For full details please check the following page:
http://www.quran-islam.org/252.html
SECOND VERSE 16:101
"When We substitute one Ayat (revelation) in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know"
The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things:
a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another.
This first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse:
"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48
Here, the words "superseding them" confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran.
b- The substitution of one law within one Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture
This second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran.
As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.
We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran.
This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another.
The evidence to that is given within the same verse (16:101):
The key to the meaning of the verse lies in the words:
"........they say, 'You made this up"
Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up" ? and why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him "You have made it up"....it has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran...
What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself!
Once it is established that this verse speaks of reaction and words of the disbelievers, then the next question is would be .... are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book... they will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another!
However, if they fear that their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up" himself.
These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between one scripture and another.
As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48
As a result of the corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101, and the claim that some Quranic verses invalidate other verses, the interpreters have demonstrated their failure to uphold two main characteristics of the Quran, those being that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions (11:1) and also that the words of God are unchangeable (10:64).
It is well worth inquiring here into the motive behind the interpreters corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101.
Note from FreeQuranOnline: If you found this article thought-provoking read the conclusion of the article in Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars - Part 2 .
http://freequranonline.org/quranic-abrogation
The Lie Of Quranic Abrogation
The biggest lie against the Quran - Part 1
By - A. Muhammad
The abrogation of Quranic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.
According to this concept, it is claimed that some verses in the Quran are abrogated and invalidated by other verses!
The verse that is the abrogator they call (Al-Nasekh) while the abrogated verse they call (Al-Mansoukh).
These scholars have come up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they have formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references.
Although the concept was originally invented by Muslim scholars as a result of their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it has been widely exploited by anti-Quranic writers to tarnish the perfection and divinity of the book.
Abrogations or Contradictions?
As mentioned, the abrogation concept implies that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the anti-Quranic writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.
It is noted that the examples used by Muslim scholars as ‘abrogated verses’ are not always the verses used by non-Muslim writers and which they simply refer to as ‘contradictions in the Quran’.
Although it can be said that the common aspect shared by the two groups is their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it can also be added that in the case of the non-Muslim writers, and particularly those who do not speak Arabic, we often find many of their claims for contradictions to be a product of their acquisition of corrupted and misleading translations of the Quran.
Both of these types of false claims can be dealt with in the light of the Quran. It can be demonstrated that these claims are no more than cases of poor understanding of the book.
Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars
11:1 A.L.R, a Scripture whose verses have been made governing, then detailed, from One who is Wise, Expert.
10:64 For them are glad tidings in the worldly life and in the Hereafter. There is no changing the words of God. Such is the great success
These Quranic state clearly that God's words have been perfected and cannot be abrogated, yet sadly these Muslim scholars have invented the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses.
They base their claim on a corrupted interpretation of two verses:
FIRST VERSE 2:106
"Whichever Ayah We nansakh or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106
What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret Ayah in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran. And they interpret the word nansakh as to mean to abrogate. But does that word as used in the Quran truly mean abrogate?
Here we have to examine the correct meanings of both words: "nansakh" and "ayat" as used by God in 2:106
First: The word "ayat"
The word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:
a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:
"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayahs (miracles)." 17:101
b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:
"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people."25:37
c- The word ‘Ayah’ can also mean a sign as in:
"He said, ‘My Lord, give me an Ayah (sign).’ He said, ‘Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10
d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:
"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its Ayat (verses)." 38:29
Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, it can easily be verified that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:
The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.
The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!
If the word ‘Ayah’ in verse 106 meant a miracle, an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten"can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.
Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :
"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah’s (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayah’s they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48
Second: The word "nansakh"
The word "nansakh" which is used in 2:106 comes from the verb "nasakha". It has been claimed that this word in 2:106 means abrogate. However, on closer inspection of all the Quranic verses which use this word it can be found that this word means quite the opposite. For full details please check the following page:
http://www.quran-islam.org/252.html
SECOND VERSE 16:101
"When We substitute one Ayat (revelation) in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know"
The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things:
a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another.
This first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse:
"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48
Here, the words "superseding them" confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran.
b- The substitution of one law within one Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture
This second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran.
As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.
We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran.
This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another.
The evidence to that is given within the same verse (16:101):
The key to the meaning of the verse lies in the words:
"........they say, 'You made this up"
Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up" ? and why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him "You have made it up"....it has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran...
What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself!
Once it is established that this verse speaks of reaction and words of the disbelievers, then the next question is would be .... are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book... they will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another!
However, if they fear that their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up" himself.
These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between one scripture and another.
As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48
As a result of the corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101, and the claim that some Quranic verses invalidate other verses, the interpreters have demonstrated their failure to uphold two main characteristics of the Quran, those being that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions (11:1) and also that the words of God are unchangeable (10:64).
It is well worth inquiring here into the motive behind the interpreters corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101.
Note from FreeQuranOnline: If you found this article thought-provoking read the conclusion of the article in Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars - Part 2 .
http://freequranonline.org/quranic-abrogation
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
Part 2: The Lie Of Quranic Abrogation
By - A. Muhammad
This article continues from The biggest lie against the Quran - Part 1. Click the link to read the first part.
Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars - Part 2
Perhaps the major reason is not connected to the Quran at all but to the ‘hadith’. It is well accepted among the hadith scholars that the concept of abrogation applies to the hadith since it is found that many ‘hadith’ contradict one another. The examples of these are too numerous. The following are only some examples:
P.S. (the first number is the number of the book (chapter), and second number is the number of hadith. For example Muslim 18/58 means the 58th hadith in the 18th book of Muslim. In other quotations the name of the chapter is given instead of its number.
1- "I am the most honourable messenger" (Bukhary 97/36).
This hadith contradicts the following hadith:
"Do not make any distinction among the messengers; I am not even better than Jonah" (Bukhary 65/4,5; Hanbel 1/205,242,440).
2- "The Prophet never urinated in standing position" (Hanbel 6/136,192,213). This contradicts:
"The prophet urinated in standing position" (Bukhary 4/60,62).
3- The prophet said, "The sun was eclipsed the day Ibrahim (the prophet’s son) died"… (Bukhary 7/page 118)
This contradicts:
The prophet said, "the sun and moon are signs from God, they are not eclipsed for the death or life of any one" (Bukhari 2/page 24)
4- "If two Muslims fight each other with their swords, the killer and the killed will go to hell" (Bukhari 1/page 13, Muslim 18/page 10).
This hadith contradicts the hadith of the ten who were foretold that they will go to heaven by the prophet (Ahmad 1/page 187-188, also narrated by Abu Dawood and Al-Tarmazy). That is because among those ten were those who fought and killed one another in battle, specifically Ali, Talha and Al-Zobair. According to the first hadith they will go to hell but accoding to the second hadith they are foretold paradise!
5- In various hadith, specifically in the chapters of the ‘Hereafter’ in the books of Bukhary and Muslim we read numerous predictions by the prophet detailing what will take place there. This contradicts the hadith by Aesha, the prophet’s wife where she says "Anybody who says that Muhammad knows the future is a liar" (Bukhary 8/ page 166, Muslim 3/ page 9-10)
6- The prophet said, "Take your religion from the words of Aesha (the prophet’s wife)"
This contradicts: The prophet said, "Aesha is immature in mind and faith." (Bukhari and others)
The heart of the matter is directly connected to the following verse:
"Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from a source other than God, they would have detected within it numerous contradictions." 4:82
This verse confirms that anything that contains contradictions cannot be from God, and since the hadith contains numerous contradictions, as shown, it cannot be from God. But the hadith advocates claim that the hadith was inspired by God and that the hadith Al-Qudsy is God’s own words spoken to Muhammad! If that is so, how could they explain the contradictions in hadith? How could it be from God when it is full of contradictions? According to 4:82 nothing that contains contradictions can be from God.
To wiggle out of this tricky situation, the hadith advocates devised the concept of the abrogation of Quranic verses.
The plan was as such: If the Quran can be shown to contain contradictory verses, yet no one will dispute that it is from God, then the hadith with its contradictions can also be described to be inspired by God.
Quite a sly plot except for one minor detail:
The Quran contains no Contradictions
To follow, is a review of some of the better known cases of abrogation and, God willing, a verification of the fact that all these claims are based upon poor understanding of the Quran. Each case presented will be accompanied by Quranic evidence that confirms the absence of any contradiction between the relevant verses, and as a result will expose the interpreter’s poor understanding of the Quran.
Claims of Abrogation
Case one:
The first case is concerned with the following verses:
Abrogated
Abrogator
"Whether you declare your inner thoughts or you conceal them, God holds you accountable to them." 2:284 "God never burdens any soul beyond its means, to its credit is what it earns, and against it is what it commits." 2:286
The claim is that these two verses contradict one another, the first verse states that God holds people accountable to their intentions while as the second verse indicates that we are only accountable to our deeds. Faced with this apparent contradiction, the scholars resolved by declaring that verse 286 invalidates and cancels out verse 284. In other words, what we do not understand, or what gives us problems in interpreting, we simply obliterate.
Although, and on first impression, it indeed looks like there is a good case for abrogation here, yet, we only have to read the verse immediately before verse 284 to realise that there is no contradiction between 284 and 286:
The last words of verse 283 together with verse 284 read as follows:
"Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart. God is fully aware of everything you do. To God belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, Whether you declare your inner thoughts or conceal them, God holds you accountable for them."
By reading the two verses together it becomes apparent that the subject of verse 284 is testimony and not one’s intentions in general.
Verse 284 confirms that God holds those who conceal a testimony accountable. Furthermore, the words used in verse 284 are ‘declare’ and ‘conceal’ while as the words used in verse 286 are ‘earn’ and ‘commit’. The words ‘declare’ and ‘conceal’ are consistent with the subject of testimony. Testimony can indeed be declared or concealed. On the other hand, the words ‘earn’ and ‘commit’ which are used in verse 286 speak of our deeds.
Indeed verses 283 and 284 are related to the same subject (withholding testimony) since they are consecutive. For all that, it becomes clear that there is not the slightest contradiction between verses 284 and 286.
According to 284, we learn that God holds people accountable for concealing a testimony. The verse does not speak of intentions. On the other hand, verse 286 speaks about a completely different issue, that being ones deeds. The assumed contradiction is false.
Case two:
Abrogated Abrogator
"Surely those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians and the
Sabaeans, those among them who believe in God and the hereafter, and
who works righteous deeds, will receive their recompense from their
Lord, they have nothing to fear nor will they grieve"2:62 "Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be
accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers"3:85
Here, the claim is that while verse 2:62 says that some Jews and Christians will be rewarded, this was abrogated by 3:85 which states that all who are not Muslim will end up in hell.
Once again, the misunderstanding and poor interpretation here stems from the inability to comprehend the simple meaning of the word Islam (Submission to God). In spite of the fact that God tells us in the Quran that Islam (Submission to God) is as old as Abraham who was the first Muslim (see 2:128, 2:131, 2:133) and who was the first to name us Muslims (22:78), still the Muslim scholars today insist that Islam is confined to being the religion Muhammad and the religion of the Quran !!!
By creating such a false statement, the Muslim scholars claim to be the custodians of the message! In 3:67 God specifically tells us that Abraham was neither Jewish nor Christian, but a monotheist Muslim. God also tells us in 5:111 that Jesus and the Disciples were Muslim. In 27:44 tells us that Solomon was Muslim and in 5:44 we are told of all the prophets who were given the Torah and who were all Muslim.
What all these verses are confirming is that there are Muslims who followed the Torah and the Bible and who knew nothing of the Quran. These Muslims were submitters to God Alone , Lord of the universe.
In effect the religion of Islam which was originally founded by Abraham can be found, not only in the Quran, but also in the Torah and the Bible. After all we are told that all the foundations of the religion, and which Muslims call the pillars of Islam were first given to Abraham.
The Quran confirms the true meaning of a Muslim, as being he who submits to God Alone and obeys the law of God Alone, and should not be confined to he who follows the Quran.
Those among the Christians who believe in the Oneness of God and who do not worship Jesus are Muslim in the sight of God. Similarly those among any other religion who submit to God Alone and who set up no idols to partner Almighty God are Muslim in the sight of God.
All these have their recompense from their Lord and have nothing to fear (2:62). These people are also the subject of 3:85 since they chose to be Muslim (submitters) to God. They could be Muslim submitters, Jewish submitters, Christian submitters …..etc.
Consequently, there is no contradiction between 2:62 and 3:85
Case Three:
Some of the most ridiculous cases of abrogation are connected with the inability of these scholars to understand that some laws set by God make allowance for exceptions. Whenever the scholars see a law that makes allowance for an exception, they construe it as a case of abrogation!
There are many cases throughout the Quran of this poor deduction and total irrationality, the following are some examples:
1- In 4:19 God address’s the men by saying:
"You shall not force them (the women) to give up anything you have given them, unless they commit a proven adultery"
Here the abrogation claim is that the first part of the verse "You shall not force them (women) to give up anything you have given them" has been abrogated by the second part of the verse "unless they commit a proven adultery"!
Why does a single exception to a rule become an allowance by God to obliterate the rule? Obviously the rule still stands, because God states that for all women who have not committed adultery, their husbands do not have the right to regain anything they had previously given them.
The first part of the verse, which constitutes the general case has not been abrogated. The second part of the verse which constitutes the exception also stands.
2- In 2:159 we read:
"Those who conceal Our revelations and guidance, after proclaiming them in the Scripture, are condemned by God; they are condemned by all the condemners"
They claim that this verse (159) has been abrogated by the verse that immediately followed it (160) which reads:
"Except those who repent, reform and proclaim, I redeem them. I am the Redeemer, the Most Merciful"
Again we see that verse 160 says that those who had concealed the revelation but then repented and reformed are redeemed by God. Verse 159 has not been abrogated. It still stands, since all those who concealed the revelations and have not repented and reformed are not redeemed.
3- In 3:86-88 we read:
"Why should God guide those who disbelieved after believing…the retribution is never commuted for them, nor will they be reprieved"
The claim here is that these verses have been abrogated by verse 89:
"Exempted are those who repent thereafter and reform, God is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
Once again the claimed abrogation is non existent. Both verses stand true.
Verses 86-88 are speaking about those who disbelieve after believing and maintain their disbelieving until death. They are never reprieved in the hereafter. Verse 89 speaks about those who repent and reform during their life. Because God is Forgiver and Most Merciful they are reprieved.
The Quran confirms that only those who die as disbelievers are not pardoned:
"Those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers, an earthful of gold will not be accepted from any of them, even if such a ransom were possible. They have incurred painful retribution; they will have no helpers." 3:91
Once again the claim of abrogation is false and is based on poor understanding of the Quran.
4- Another case of poor understanding is found in the following verses:
"Also you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time"4:23
they claim that this has been abrogated by the words that immediately followed :
"except that which has taken place in the past"
and they interpret the last sentence, which in Arabic is (Ila ma salaf) to have the meaning of (I have forgiven you).
Obviously this is all incorrect. What this last verse means is ‘do not break up existing marriages’. It has nothing to do with forgiveness.
In other words God is saying that this law is to be enforced from that time onwards, but not to previous marriages so as not to break existing families.
Again the abrogation is non existent.
The same is applies to :
"Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers, except that which has taken place in the past…"4:22
Case four:
Here they claim the underlined words in the following verse:
"To God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you go you will always be facing God. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient" 2:115
have been abrogated by the underlined words in the following verse:
"We now assign a Qiblah that is pleasing to you. Henceforth, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid. Wherever you may, all of you shall turn your faces towards it."2:144
The claim is that in the beginning God made it lawful for the believers to face anywhere in Salat (Contact Prayers) (as in 2:115) then later God cancelled that by appointing a set Qibla (2:144) for the believers. Therefore, the claim is that 2:144 invalidates 2:115
First of all, it was never made lawful for believers to face anywhere in their Salat. This claim has no Quranic evidence whatsoever. We are told in the Quran that the Qibla was changed, but nowhere are we told that there was no Qibla.
We are told in the Quran that there was a Qibla that did not appeal to the prophet, and that God changed it to one that is more appealing to the prophet (see 2:144)
The obvious misunderstanding here is that while verse 144 is speaking about Qiblah for the Salat (Prayer), verse 115 is not speaking about Salat at all. Verse 115 is speaking about the fact that God is present everywhere, and thus wherever we may look or wherever we may go, we will always be facing God. The presence of the word "Omnipresent" at the end of the verse confirms that the subject of the verse is God’s Presence and not the Salat.
Verse 144 does not abrogate verse 115. They are talking about two completely different subjects.
Case Five:
Abrogated Abrogator
"Had they, when they wronged their souls, come to you and prayed to GOD
for forgiveness, and the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they
would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful." 4:64 "Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for
them - even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will
not forgive them. This is because they disbelieve in GOD and His
messenger. GOD does not guide the wicked people." 9:80
The claim is that the underlined words in 9:80 "even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them" invalidate the underlined words in 4:64 "the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful.".
Once again, a case of poor understanding of the Quran.
Here we immediately note that these two verses speak about two different groups of people. In 4:64 God is speaking about those who have wronged their souls but have turned back to God and asked for His forgiveness. The fact that they asked forgiveness from God denotes that they believe in God, and for that we are told that "they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful.".
On the other hand, those spoken of in 9:80 are described by the words: "they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger"…and because they are disbelievers, we are told that "GOD will not forgive them".
From these two verses we learn that forgiveness can be asked for any believer who repents and reforms, but may never be asked for disbelievers.
No contradiction or invalidation exists between the two verses.
Case six:
Abrogated Abrogator
"O you who believe, witnessing a will when one of you is dying shall be
done by two equitable people among you (relatives or close friends). If
you are travelling, then two others may do the witnessing. After
observing the Contact Prayer (Salat), let the witnesses swear by GOD,
to alleviate your doubts: "We will not use this to attain personal
gains, even if the testator is related to us. Nor will we conceal GOD's
testimony. Otherwise, we would be sinners." 5:106 "Once the interim is fulfilled, you may reconcile with them equitably,
or go through with the separation equitably. You shall have two
equitable witnesses from among you (relatives or close friends) witness
the divorce before GOD."65:2
The claim is that in 5:106 any two witnesses, who are not necessarily relatives or close friends, can act as witnesses while in travel if relatives are not available, but this was invalidated by 65:2 which stated that the witnesses must be from among the relatives or close friends.
Once again, the claim is false for the following reasons:
1- The subject of 5:106 is witnessing the will of someone who is dying, or near death. The subject of 65:2 is witnessing a divorce.
2- In the situation of travel, a dying person may not have much time left, and since equitable relatives may not be available in time, thus God wavered the condition of the witnesses being from among the relatives, so that the will is witnessed in time before the death of the person.
3- The case of divorce does not present such immediate urgency, and thus the condition of equitable witnesses from among the relatives stands.
4- Thus it is obvious that 65:2 does not abrogate 5:106 in any way.
Case seven:
Abrogated
Abrogator
"Say, ‘I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day." 6:15 "We have bestowed upon you (O Messenger) a great victory, whereby GOD forgives your past sins, as well as future sins…….." 48:2
Here the claim is that the underlined words in 6:15 were abrogated later by the underlined words in 48:2
The indirect outcome of this outrageous abrogation is one of total idol worship.
If the scholars state that the words "I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day" are invalidated, are they saying that the prophet no longer has to fear God?
To demonstrate the truth of these verses and their implications it is necessary first to examine in the light of the Quran what is forgiven by God, and which can be implied under 48:2, and what is never forgiven by God and thus must be feared according to 6:15.
We are told in the Quran that God forgives all sins except idol worship (setting partners to God):
"God does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offences for whomever He wills." 4:48 and 4:116
We are also told that this warning applies to all people, including God’s messengers. To affirm that even Muhammad was not excluded from this warning, we see God specifically warning Muhammad against idolatry:
"It has been revealed to you (O Muhammad), and to those before you that if you ever commit idolatry, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers." 39:65
Now when we come to the claimed abrogation of 6:15, we read the following words:
"Say, ‘I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day."
However, when we read the words that immediately precede this verse, we read:
"Say, "I am commanded to be the most devoted submitter, and, `Do not be an idol worshiper." 6:14
If we put the two verses next to one another (verses 14 and 15 of Surah 6), it becomes obvious that the messenger is to say (If I should ever disobey God and commit idol worship, then I would fear the retribution of an awesome day).
It follows from that to conclude that verse 48:2 which promises the messenger’s sins will be forgiven (past and future sins) is obviously connected to all sins, except if he was ever to commit idol worship.
There is no contradiction or abrogation between the two verses.
Case eight:
Abrogated
Abrogator
"GOD has pardoned you: why did you give them permission (to stay
behind), before you could distinguish those who are truthful from the
liars?" 9:43 "The true believers are those who believe in GOD and His messenger, and
when they are with him in a community meeting, they do not leave him
without permission. Those who ask permission are the ones who do
believe in GOD and His messenger. If they ask your permission, in order
to tend to some of their affairs, you may grant permission to whomever
you wish, and ask GOD to forgive them. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
24:62
The claim here is that in 9:43 the prophet was not allowed to give permission to the ones wanting to stay behind, before he could distinguish those who are truthful from the liars, while in 24:62 he was not given the permission to do so.
Once again, the error is quite obvious. Verse 9:43 is specifically speaking of the urgent case of going out for battle, whileas 24:62 speaks of the more relaxed situation of someone leaving a community meeting to attend to some personal matters!
We read in the two verses preceding 9:43, namely 9:41 and 42:
"You shall readily mobilize, light or heavy, and strive with your money and your lives in the cause of GOD. This is better for you, if you only knew.
If there were a quick material gain, and a short journey, they would have followed you. But the striving is just too much for them. They will swear by GOD: "If we could, we would have mobilized with you." They thus hurt themselves, and GOD knows that they are liars."
The underlined words "mobilize" and if it were a "short journey" indicate that the subject is mobilizing to go out for the purpose of battle.
However, the words "community meeting" in 24:62, denotes that the situation there is not one of battle but a normal community meeting where a request for permission to be excused for some personal matters would not exactly be classified as an unforgivable sin!
Once again 24:62 does not contradict or abrogate 9:43, the subject of the two verse is different.
http://freequranonline.org/quranic-abrogation-2
By - A. Muhammad
This article continues from The biggest lie against the Quran - Part 1. Click the link to read the first part.
Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars - Part 2
Perhaps the major reason is not connected to the Quran at all but to the ‘hadith’. It is well accepted among the hadith scholars that the concept of abrogation applies to the hadith since it is found that many ‘hadith’ contradict one another. The examples of these are too numerous. The following are only some examples:
P.S. (the first number is the number of the book (chapter), and second number is the number of hadith. For example Muslim 18/58 means the 58th hadith in the 18th book of Muslim. In other quotations the name of the chapter is given instead of its number.
1- "I am the most honourable messenger" (Bukhary 97/36).
This hadith contradicts the following hadith:
"Do not make any distinction among the messengers; I am not even better than Jonah" (Bukhary 65/4,5; Hanbel 1/205,242,440).
2- "The Prophet never urinated in standing position" (Hanbel 6/136,192,213). This contradicts:
"The prophet urinated in standing position" (Bukhary 4/60,62).
3- The prophet said, "The sun was eclipsed the day Ibrahim (the prophet’s son) died"… (Bukhary 7/page 118)
This contradicts:
The prophet said, "the sun and moon are signs from God, they are not eclipsed for the death or life of any one" (Bukhari 2/page 24)
4- "If two Muslims fight each other with their swords, the killer and the killed will go to hell" (Bukhari 1/page 13, Muslim 18/page 10).
This hadith contradicts the hadith of the ten who were foretold that they will go to heaven by the prophet (Ahmad 1/page 187-188, also narrated by Abu Dawood and Al-Tarmazy). That is because among those ten were those who fought and killed one another in battle, specifically Ali, Talha and Al-Zobair. According to the first hadith they will go to hell but accoding to the second hadith they are foretold paradise!
5- In various hadith, specifically in the chapters of the ‘Hereafter’ in the books of Bukhary and Muslim we read numerous predictions by the prophet detailing what will take place there. This contradicts the hadith by Aesha, the prophet’s wife where she says "Anybody who says that Muhammad knows the future is a liar" (Bukhary 8/ page 166, Muslim 3/ page 9-10)
6- The prophet said, "Take your religion from the words of Aesha (the prophet’s wife)"
This contradicts: The prophet said, "Aesha is immature in mind and faith." (Bukhari and others)
The heart of the matter is directly connected to the following verse:
"Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from a source other than God, they would have detected within it numerous contradictions." 4:82
This verse confirms that anything that contains contradictions cannot be from God, and since the hadith contains numerous contradictions, as shown, it cannot be from God. But the hadith advocates claim that the hadith was inspired by God and that the hadith Al-Qudsy is God’s own words spoken to Muhammad! If that is so, how could they explain the contradictions in hadith? How could it be from God when it is full of contradictions? According to 4:82 nothing that contains contradictions can be from God.
To wiggle out of this tricky situation, the hadith advocates devised the concept of the abrogation of Quranic verses.
The plan was as such: If the Quran can be shown to contain contradictory verses, yet no one will dispute that it is from God, then the hadith with its contradictions can also be described to be inspired by God.
Quite a sly plot except for one minor detail:
The Quran contains no Contradictions
To follow, is a review of some of the better known cases of abrogation and, God willing, a verification of the fact that all these claims are based upon poor understanding of the Quran. Each case presented will be accompanied by Quranic evidence that confirms the absence of any contradiction between the relevant verses, and as a result will expose the interpreter’s poor understanding of the Quran.
Claims of Abrogation
Case one:
The first case is concerned with the following verses:
Abrogated
Abrogator
"Whether you declare your inner thoughts or you conceal them, God holds you accountable to them." 2:284 "God never burdens any soul beyond its means, to its credit is what it earns, and against it is what it commits." 2:286
The claim is that these two verses contradict one another, the first verse states that God holds people accountable to their intentions while as the second verse indicates that we are only accountable to our deeds. Faced with this apparent contradiction, the scholars resolved by declaring that verse 286 invalidates and cancels out verse 284. In other words, what we do not understand, or what gives us problems in interpreting, we simply obliterate.
Although, and on first impression, it indeed looks like there is a good case for abrogation here, yet, we only have to read the verse immediately before verse 284 to realise that there is no contradiction between 284 and 286:
The last words of verse 283 together with verse 284 read as follows:
"Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart. God is fully aware of everything you do. To God belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, Whether you declare your inner thoughts or conceal them, God holds you accountable for them."
By reading the two verses together it becomes apparent that the subject of verse 284 is testimony and not one’s intentions in general.
Verse 284 confirms that God holds those who conceal a testimony accountable. Furthermore, the words used in verse 284 are ‘declare’ and ‘conceal’ while as the words used in verse 286 are ‘earn’ and ‘commit’. The words ‘declare’ and ‘conceal’ are consistent with the subject of testimony. Testimony can indeed be declared or concealed. On the other hand, the words ‘earn’ and ‘commit’ which are used in verse 286 speak of our deeds.
Indeed verses 283 and 284 are related to the same subject (withholding testimony) since they are consecutive. For all that, it becomes clear that there is not the slightest contradiction between verses 284 and 286.
According to 284, we learn that God holds people accountable for concealing a testimony. The verse does not speak of intentions. On the other hand, verse 286 speaks about a completely different issue, that being ones deeds. The assumed contradiction is false.
Case two:
Abrogated Abrogator
"Surely those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians and the
Sabaeans, those among them who believe in God and the hereafter, and
who works righteous deeds, will receive their recompense from their
Lord, they have nothing to fear nor will they grieve"2:62 "Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be
accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers"3:85
Here, the claim is that while verse 2:62 says that some Jews and Christians will be rewarded, this was abrogated by 3:85 which states that all who are not Muslim will end up in hell.
Once again, the misunderstanding and poor interpretation here stems from the inability to comprehend the simple meaning of the word Islam (Submission to God). In spite of the fact that God tells us in the Quran that Islam (Submission to God) is as old as Abraham who was the first Muslim (see 2:128, 2:131, 2:133) and who was the first to name us Muslims (22:78), still the Muslim scholars today insist that Islam is confined to being the religion Muhammad and the religion of the Quran !!!
By creating such a false statement, the Muslim scholars claim to be the custodians of the message! In 3:67 God specifically tells us that Abraham was neither Jewish nor Christian, but a monotheist Muslim. God also tells us in 5:111 that Jesus and the Disciples were Muslim. In 27:44 tells us that Solomon was Muslim and in 5:44 we are told of all the prophets who were given the Torah and who were all Muslim.
What all these verses are confirming is that there are Muslims who followed the Torah and the Bible and who knew nothing of the Quran. These Muslims were submitters to God Alone , Lord of the universe.
In effect the religion of Islam which was originally founded by Abraham can be found, not only in the Quran, but also in the Torah and the Bible. After all we are told that all the foundations of the religion, and which Muslims call the pillars of Islam were first given to Abraham.
The Quran confirms the true meaning of a Muslim, as being he who submits to God Alone and obeys the law of God Alone, and should not be confined to he who follows the Quran.
Those among the Christians who believe in the Oneness of God and who do not worship Jesus are Muslim in the sight of God. Similarly those among any other religion who submit to God Alone and who set up no idols to partner Almighty God are Muslim in the sight of God.
All these have their recompense from their Lord and have nothing to fear (2:62). These people are also the subject of 3:85 since they chose to be Muslim (submitters) to God. They could be Muslim submitters, Jewish submitters, Christian submitters …..etc.
Consequently, there is no contradiction between 2:62 and 3:85
Case Three:
Some of the most ridiculous cases of abrogation are connected with the inability of these scholars to understand that some laws set by God make allowance for exceptions. Whenever the scholars see a law that makes allowance for an exception, they construe it as a case of abrogation!
There are many cases throughout the Quran of this poor deduction and total irrationality, the following are some examples:
1- In 4:19 God address’s the men by saying:
"You shall not force them (the women) to give up anything you have given them, unless they commit a proven adultery"
Here the abrogation claim is that the first part of the verse "You shall not force them (women) to give up anything you have given them" has been abrogated by the second part of the verse "unless they commit a proven adultery"!
Why does a single exception to a rule become an allowance by God to obliterate the rule? Obviously the rule still stands, because God states that for all women who have not committed adultery, their husbands do not have the right to regain anything they had previously given them.
The first part of the verse, which constitutes the general case has not been abrogated. The second part of the verse which constitutes the exception also stands.
2- In 2:159 we read:
"Those who conceal Our revelations and guidance, after proclaiming them in the Scripture, are condemned by God; they are condemned by all the condemners"
They claim that this verse (159) has been abrogated by the verse that immediately followed it (160) which reads:
"Except those who repent, reform and proclaim, I redeem them. I am the Redeemer, the Most Merciful"
Again we see that verse 160 says that those who had concealed the revelation but then repented and reformed are redeemed by God. Verse 159 has not been abrogated. It still stands, since all those who concealed the revelations and have not repented and reformed are not redeemed.
3- In 3:86-88 we read:
"Why should God guide those who disbelieved after believing…the retribution is never commuted for them, nor will they be reprieved"
The claim here is that these verses have been abrogated by verse 89:
"Exempted are those who repent thereafter and reform, God is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
Once again the claimed abrogation is non existent. Both verses stand true.
Verses 86-88 are speaking about those who disbelieve after believing and maintain their disbelieving until death. They are never reprieved in the hereafter. Verse 89 speaks about those who repent and reform during their life. Because God is Forgiver and Most Merciful they are reprieved.
The Quran confirms that only those who die as disbelievers are not pardoned:
"Those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers, an earthful of gold will not be accepted from any of them, even if such a ransom were possible. They have incurred painful retribution; they will have no helpers." 3:91
Once again the claim of abrogation is false and is based on poor understanding of the Quran.
4- Another case of poor understanding is found in the following verses:
"Also you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time"4:23
they claim that this has been abrogated by the words that immediately followed :
"except that which has taken place in the past"
and they interpret the last sentence, which in Arabic is (Ila ma salaf) to have the meaning of (I have forgiven you).
Obviously this is all incorrect. What this last verse means is ‘do not break up existing marriages’. It has nothing to do with forgiveness.
In other words God is saying that this law is to be enforced from that time onwards, but not to previous marriages so as not to break existing families.
Again the abrogation is non existent.
The same is applies to :
"Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers, except that which has taken place in the past…"4:22
Case four:
Here they claim the underlined words in the following verse:
"To God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you go you will always be facing God. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient" 2:115
have been abrogated by the underlined words in the following verse:
"We now assign a Qiblah that is pleasing to you. Henceforth, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid. Wherever you may, all of you shall turn your faces towards it."2:144
The claim is that in the beginning God made it lawful for the believers to face anywhere in Salat (Contact Prayers) (as in 2:115) then later God cancelled that by appointing a set Qibla (2:144) for the believers. Therefore, the claim is that 2:144 invalidates 2:115
First of all, it was never made lawful for believers to face anywhere in their Salat. This claim has no Quranic evidence whatsoever. We are told in the Quran that the Qibla was changed, but nowhere are we told that there was no Qibla.
We are told in the Quran that there was a Qibla that did not appeal to the prophet, and that God changed it to one that is more appealing to the prophet (see 2:144)
The obvious misunderstanding here is that while verse 144 is speaking about Qiblah for the Salat (Prayer), verse 115 is not speaking about Salat at all. Verse 115 is speaking about the fact that God is present everywhere, and thus wherever we may look or wherever we may go, we will always be facing God. The presence of the word "Omnipresent" at the end of the verse confirms that the subject of the verse is God’s Presence and not the Salat.
Verse 144 does not abrogate verse 115. They are talking about two completely different subjects.
Case Five:
Abrogated Abrogator
"Had they, when they wronged their souls, come to you and prayed to GOD
for forgiveness, and the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they
would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful." 4:64 "Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for
them - even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will
not forgive them. This is because they disbelieve in GOD and His
messenger. GOD does not guide the wicked people." 9:80
The claim is that the underlined words in 9:80 "even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them" invalidate the underlined words in 4:64 "the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful.".
Once again, a case of poor understanding of the Quran.
Here we immediately note that these two verses speak about two different groups of people. In 4:64 God is speaking about those who have wronged their souls but have turned back to God and asked for His forgiveness. The fact that they asked forgiveness from God denotes that they believe in God, and for that we are told that "they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful.".
On the other hand, those spoken of in 9:80 are described by the words: "they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger"…and because they are disbelievers, we are told that "GOD will not forgive them".
From these two verses we learn that forgiveness can be asked for any believer who repents and reforms, but may never be asked for disbelievers.
No contradiction or invalidation exists between the two verses.
Case six:
Abrogated Abrogator
"O you who believe, witnessing a will when one of you is dying shall be
done by two equitable people among you (relatives or close friends). If
you are travelling, then two others may do the witnessing. After
observing the Contact Prayer (Salat), let the witnesses swear by GOD,
to alleviate your doubts: "We will not use this to attain personal
gains, even if the testator is related to us. Nor will we conceal GOD's
testimony. Otherwise, we would be sinners." 5:106 "Once the interim is fulfilled, you may reconcile with them equitably,
or go through with the separation equitably. You shall have two
equitable witnesses from among you (relatives or close friends) witness
the divorce before GOD."65:2
The claim is that in 5:106 any two witnesses, who are not necessarily relatives or close friends, can act as witnesses while in travel if relatives are not available, but this was invalidated by 65:2 which stated that the witnesses must be from among the relatives or close friends.
Once again, the claim is false for the following reasons:
1- The subject of 5:106 is witnessing the will of someone who is dying, or near death. The subject of 65:2 is witnessing a divorce.
2- In the situation of travel, a dying person may not have much time left, and since equitable relatives may not be available in time, thus God wavered the condition of the witnesses being from among the relatives, so that the will is witnessed in time before the death of the person.
3- The case of divorce does not present such immediate urgency, and thus the condition of equitable witnesses from among the relatives stands.
4- Thus it is obvious that 65:2 does not abrogate 5:106 in any way.
Case seven:
Abrogated
Abrogator
"Say, ‘I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day." 6:15 "We have bestowed upon you (O Messenger) a great victory, whereby GOD forgives your past sins, as well as future sins…….." 48:2
Here the claim is that the underlined words in 6:15 were abrogated later by the underlined words in 48:2
The indirect outcome of this outrageous abrogation is one of total idol worship.
If the scholars state that the words "I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day" are invalidated, are they saying that the prophet no longer has to fear God?
To demonstrate the truth of these verses and their implications it is necessary first to examine in the light of the Quran what is forgiven by God, and which can be implied under 48:2, and what is never forgiven by God and thus must be feared according to 6:15.
We are told in the Quran that God forgives all sins except idol worship (setting partners to God):
"God does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offences for whomever He wills." 4:48 and 4:116
We are also told that this warning applies to all people, including God’s messengers. To affirm that even Muhammad was not excluded from this warning, we see God specifically warning Muhammad against idolatry:
"It has been revealed to you (O Muhammad), and to those before you that if you ever commit idolatry, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers." 39:65
Now when we come to the claimed abrogation of 6:15, we read the following words:
"Say, ‘I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day."
However, when we read the words that immediately precede this verse, we read:
"Say, "I am commanded to be the most devoted submitter, and, `Do not be an idol worshiper." 6:14
If we put the two verses next to one another (verses 14 and 15 of Surah 6), it becomes obvious that the messenger is to say (If I should ever disobey God and commit idol worship, then I would fear the retribution of an awesome day).
It follows from that to conclude that verse 48:2 which promises the messenger’s sins will be forgiven (past and future sins) is obviously connected to all sins, except if he was ever to commit idol worship.
There is no contradiction or abrogation between the two verses.
Case eight:
Abrogated
Abrogator
"GOD has pardoned you: why did you give them permission (to stay
behind), before you could distinguish those who are truthful from the
liars?" 9:43 "The true believers are those who believe in GOD and His messenger, and
when they are with him in a community meeting, they do not leave him
without permission. Those who ask permission are the ones who do
believe in GOD and His messenger. If they ask your permission, in order
to tend to some of their affairs, you may grant permission to whomever
you wish, and ask GOD to forgive them. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
24:62
The claim here is that in 9:43 the prophet was not allowed to give permission to the ones wanting to stay behind, before he could distinguish those who are truthful from the liars, while in 24:62 he was not given the permission to do so.
Once again, the error is quite obvious. Verse 9:43 is specifically speaking of the urgent case of going out for battle, whileas 24:62 speaks of the more relaxed situation of someone leaving a community meeting to attend to some personal matters!
We read in the two verses preceding 9:43, namely 9:41 and 42:
"You shall readily mobilize, light or heavy, and strive with your money and your lives in the cause of GOD. This is better for you, if you only knew.
If there were a quick material gain, and a short journey, they would have followed you. But the striving is just too much for them. They will swear by GOD: "If we could, we would have mobilized with you." They thus hurt themselves, and GOD knows that they are liars."
The underlined words "mobilize" and if it were a "short journey" indicate that the subject is mobilizing to go out for the purpose of battle.
However, the words "community meeting" in 24:62, denotes that the situation there is not one of battle but a normal community meeting where a request for permission to be excused for some personal matters would not exactly be classified as an unforgivable sin!
Once again 24:62 does not contradict or abrogate 9:43, the subject of the two verse is different.
http://freequranonline.org/quranic-abrogation-2
Once again..my ultimate source is the farman of the Imam - wherein I am told that the Quran is incomplete.arshad1988 wrote:There are some that believe in this doctrine. In my opinion, it was started due to mischief. However, there are also others which believe that this is a fallacy in respect to verses within the Qur'an. The word 'ayat' in the verse you provided refers to the revelations, not the particular verses in the Qur'an, like I said.
The Lie Of Quranic Abrogation
The biggest lie against the Quran - Part 1
By - A. Muhammad
The abrogation of Quranic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.
According to this concept, it is claimed that some verses in the Quran are abrogated and invalidated by other verses!
The verse that is the abrogator they call (Al-Nasekh) while the abrogated verse they call (Al-Mansoukh).
These scholars have come up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they have formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references.
Although the concept was originally invented by Muslim scholars as a result of their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it has been widely exploited by anti-Quranic writers to tarnish the perfection and divinity of the book.
Abrogations or Contradictions?
As mentioned, the abrogation concept implies that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the anti-Quranic writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.
It is noted that the examples used by Muslim scholars as ‘abrogated verses’ are not always the verses used by non-Muslim writers and which they simply refer to as ‘contradictions in the Quran’.
Although it can be said that the common aspect shared by the two groups is their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it can also be added that in the case of the non-Muslim writers, and particularly those who do not speak Arabic, we often find many of their claims for contradictions to be a product of their acquisition of corrupted and misleading translations of the Quran.
Both of these types of false claims can be dealt with in the light of the Quran. It can be demonstrated that these claims are no more than cases of poor understanding of the book.
Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars
11:1 A.L.R, a Scripture whose verses have been made governing, then detailed, from One who is Wise, Expert.
10:64 For them are glad tidings in the worldly life and in the Hereafter. There is no changing the words of God. Such is the great success
These Quranic state clearly that God's words have been perfected and cannot be abrogated, yet sadly these Muslim scholars have invented the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses.
They base their claim on a corrupted interpretation of two verses:
FIRST VERSE 2:106
"Whichever Ayah We nansakh or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106
What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret Ayah in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran. And they interpret the word nansakh as to mean to abrogate. But does that word as used in the Quran truly mean abrogate?
Here we have to examine the correct meanings of both words: "nansakh" and "ayat" as used by God in 2:106
First: The word "ayat"
The word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:
a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:
"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayahs (miracles)." 17:101
b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:
"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people."25:37
c- The word ‘Ayah’ can also mean a sign as in:
"He said, ‘My Lord, give me an Ayah (sign).’ He said, ‘Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10
d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:
"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its Ayat (verses)." 38:29
Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, it can easily be verified that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:
The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.
The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!
If the word ‘Ayah’ in verse 106 meant a miracle, an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten"can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.
Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :
"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah’s (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayah’s they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48
Second: The word "nansakh"
The word "nansakh" which is used in 2:106 comes from the verb "nasakha". It has been claimed that this word in 2:106 means abrogate. However, on closer inspection of all the Quranic verses which use this word it can be found that this word means quite the opposite. For full details please check the following page:
http://www.quran-islam.org/252.html
SECOND VERSE 16:101
"When We substitute one Ayat (revelation) in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know"
The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things:
a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another.
This first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse:
"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48
Here, the words "superseding them" confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran.
b- The substitution of one law within one Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture
This second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran.
As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.
We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran.
This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another.
The evidence to that is given within the same verse (16:101):
The key to the meaning of the verse lies in the words:
"........they say, 'You made this up"
Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up" ? and why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him "You have made it up"....it has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran...
What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself!
Once it is established that this verse speaks of reaction and words of the disbelievers, then the next question is would be .... are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book... they will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another!
However, if they fear that their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up" himself.
These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between one scripture and another.
As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48
As a result of the corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101, and the claim that some Quranic verses invalidate other verses, the interpreters have demonstrated their failure to uphold two main characteristics of the Quran, those being that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions (11:1) and also that the words of God are unchangeable (10:64).
It is well worth inquiring here into the motive behind the interpreters corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101.
Note from FreeQuranOnline: If you found this article thought-provoking read the conclusion of the article in Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars - Part 2 .
http://freequranonline.org/quranic-abrogation
Shams
Below are pertinent Farmans on the tampering of the Quran.
Asal maa “Tauret,” “ zambur,” “furkaan” ey sarvey kitaabo, judi judi komo upar, judey judey vakhatey naazil thai hati, tey sarvey satya hati. Quraaney sharif pun satya hatu, parantu khalifaa Usmaan na vakhat ma, temaa ferfaar kari naakhvaamaa aavyo chhe. Aagad naa bolo paachhad aney paachhad naa bolo aagad raakhvaamaa aavyaa chhe. Aa baabatno sarvey khulaaso tamney dekhaadshu. Tamney ginan ni maayena ma samjan padti na hoy to amney puchho, amey tamney khulaaso samjaavshu. Amey atrey aavyaa chhieye, tey tamaaro sudhaaro karvaa tathaa tamaaraa jeev no chhutkaaro karvaa aavyaa chhieye.(Farmaan no.38 Jungbaar 30-7-1899)
Which translates as:
Originally books such as the Torah, Zambur and Furkaan were revealed to different communities at different times. All of these were the truth. The Quran-e-Sherif was also the truth, but during Khalif Uthman's time, they made changes to it. The verses revealed before were moved later and those revealed later were put forward. We will explain all the details of this. If you do not understand the meanings of the Ginans, ask us, we will explain to you. We have come here to improve your conditions and to liberate your souls....
Khalifaa usmaan na samay ma Quraaney sharif ma thi ketlok bhaag kaadhhi naakhvaamaa aavyo chhe aney ketlok bhaag umeri devaamaa aavyo chhe.(Farmaan no.38 Jungbaar 30-7-1899)
During Khalif Uthman's time there were many verses that were removed from the Quran-e-Sherif and many verses that were added to it.
‘Tey kitaab lai ney Murtaza Ali masjid ma gayaa aney sarvey loko ney farmaavyu, aa kitaab maney rasulillah ae aapi chhe, tem tamaari paasey lai aavvaa vasiyat kari hati, maatey tamey lyo,
Tyaarey sarvey loko bolyaa ke, amaari paasey hazrat Usmaan ni kitaab chhe, tey bus chhe, tamaari kitaab ni amney jaroor nathi.
Tyaarey Murtaza Ali ey farmaavyu, aa kitaab ni tamney ratti jetli pun kayaamat na diwas sudhi khabar nahi padey. Em kahi kitaab potaaney gharey paachhi lai gayaa.
Tey kitaab paaraa das chhe. Tenaa maatey pir sadardiney tamney ginan ma samjaavel chhe, tey pramaaney chaalo.’(Farmaan no.20 Manjevaadi 31-12-1893)
Murtaza Ali went to the mosque with that (authentic) book and told them: "This book was given to me by the Messenger of God and he instructed me to bring it to you, therefore accept it."
At that moment many spoke: "We have Hazarat Uthman's version which is sufficient for us and we do not need your book".
Mowla Murtaza Ali said: "Of this book you will have not even a minute amount of understanding until the day of judgement." He then went home and took the book with him.
That book comprises of the ten paras, of which Pir Sadardin has explained to you in the Ginans. Follow according to them.
Hence the Quran without the Imam is incomplete....
Asal maa “Tauret,” “ zambur,” “furkaan” ey sarvey kitaabo, judi judi komo upar, judey judey vakhatey naazil thai hati, tey sarvey satya hati. Quraaney sharif pun satya hatu, parantu khalifaa Usmaan na vakhat ma, temaa ferfaar kari naakhvaamaa aavyo chhe. Aagad naa bolo paachhad aney paachhad naa bolo aagad raakhvaamaa aavyaa chhe. Aa baabatno sarvey khulaaso tamney dekhaadshu. Tamney ginan ni maayena ma samjan padti na hoy to amney puchho, amey tamney khulaaso samjaavshu. Amey atrey aavyaa chhieye, tey tamaaro sudhaaro karvaa tathaa tamaaraa jeev no chhutkaaro karvaa aavyaa chhieye.(Farmaan no.38 Jungbaar 30-7-1899)
Which translates as:
Originally books such as the Torah, Zambur and Furkaan were revealed to different communities at different times. All of these were the truth. The Quran-e-Sherif was also the truth, but during Khalif Uthman's time, they made changes to it. The verses revealed before were moved later and those revealed later were put forward. We will explain all the details of this. If you do not understand the meanings of the Ginans, ask us, we will explain to you. We have come here to improve your conditions and to liberate your souls....
Khalifaa usmaan na samay ma Quraaney sharif ma thi ketlok bhaag kaadhhi naakhvaamaa aavyo chhe aney ketlok bhaag umeri devaamaa aavyo chhe.(Farmaan no.38 Jungbaar 30-7-1899)
During Khalif Uthman's time there were many verses that were removed from the Quran-e-Sherif and many verses that were added to it.
‘Tey kitaab lai ney Murtaza Ali masjid ma gayaa aney sarvey loko ney farmaavyu, aa kitaab maney rasulillah ae aapi chhe, tem tamaari paasey lai aavvaa vasiyat kari hati, maatey tamey lyo,
Tyaarey sarvey loko bolyaa ke, amaari paasey hazrat Usmaan ni kitaab chhe, tey bus chhe, tamaari kitaab ni amney jaroor nathi.
Tyaarey Murtaza Ali ey farmaavyu, aa kitaab ni tamney ratti jetli pun kayaamat na diwas sudhi khabar nahi padey. Em kahi kitaab potaaney gharey paachhi lai gayaa.
Tey kitaab paaraa das chhe. Tenaa maatey pir sadardiney tamney ginan ma samjaavel chhe, tey pramaaney chaalo.’(Farmaan no.20 Manjevaadi 31-12-1893)
Murtaza Ali went to the mosque with that (authentic) book and told them: "This book was given to me by the Messenger of God and he instructed me to bring it to you, therefore accept it."
At that moment many spoke: "We have Hazarat Uthman's version which is sufficient for us and we do not need your book".
Mowla Murtaza Ali said: "Of this book you will have not even a minute amount of understanding until the day of judgement." He then went home and took the book with him.
That book comprises of the ten paras, of which Pir Sadardin has explained to you in the Ginans. Follow according to them.
Hence the Quran without the Imam is incomplete....
Yup..that's the farman i was referring to.kmaherali wrote:Below are pertinent Farmans on the tampering of the Quran.
Asal maa “Tauret,” “ zambur,” “furkaan” ey sarvey kitaabo, judi judi komo upar, judey judey vakhatey naazil thai hati, tey sarvey satya hati. Quraaney sharif pun satya hatu, parantu khalifaa Usmaan na vakhat ma, temaa ferfaar kari naakhvaamaa aavyo chhe. Aagad naa bolo paachhad aney paachhad naa bolo aagad raakhvaamaa aavyaa chhe. Aa baabatno sarvey khulaaso tamney dekhaadshu. Tamney ginan ni maayena ma samjan padti na hoy to amney puchho, amey tamney khulaaso samjaavshu. Amey atrey aavyaa chhieye, tey tamaaro sudhaaro karvaa tathaa tamaaraa jeev no chhutkaaro karvaa aavyaa chhieye.(Farmaan no.38 Jungbaar 30-7-1899)
Which translates as:
Originally books such as the Torah, Zambur and Furkaan were revealed to different communities at different times. All of these were the truth. The Quran-e-Sherif was also the truth, but during Khalif Uthman's time, they made changes to it. The verses revealed before were moved later and those revealed later were put forward. We will explain all the details of this. If you do not understand the meanings of the Ginans, ask us, we will explain to you. We have come here to improve your conditions and to liberate your souls....
Khalifaa usmaan na samay ma Quraaney sharif ma thi ketlok bhaag kaadhhi naakhvaamaa aavyo chhe aney ketlok bhaag umeri devaamaa aavyo chhe.(Farmaan no.38 Jungbaar 30-7-1899)
During Khalif Uthman's time there were many verses that were removed from the Quran-e-Sherif and many verses that were added to it.
‘Tey kitaab lai ney Murtaza Ali masjid ma gayaa aney sarvey loko ney farmaavyu, aa kitaab maney rasulillah ae aapi chhe, tem tamaari paasey lai aavvaa vasiyat kari hati, maatey tamey lyo,
Tyaarey sarvey loko bolyaa ke, amaari paasey hazrat Usmaan ni kitaab chhe, tey bus chhe, tamaari kitaab ni amney jaroor nathi.
Tyaarey Murtaza Ali ey farmaavyu, aa kitaab ni tamney ratti jetli pun kayaamat na diwas sudhi khabar nahi padey. Em kahi kitaab potaaney gharey paachhi lai gayaa.
Tey kitaab paaraa das chhe. Tenaa maatey pir sadardiney tamney ginan ma samjaavel chhe, tey pramaaney chaalo.’(Farmaan no.20 Manjevaadi 31-12-1893)
Murtaza Ali went to the mosque with that (authentic) book and told them: "This book was given to me by the Messenger of God and he instructed me to bring it to you, therefore accept it."
At that moment many spoke: "We have Hazarat Uthman's version which is sufficient for us and we do not need your book".
Mowla Murtaza Ali said: "Of this book you will have not even a minute amount of understanding until the day of judgement." He then went home and took the book with him.
That book comprises of the ten paras, of which Pir Sadardin has explained to you in the Ginans. Follow according to them.
Hence the Quran without the Imam is incomplete....
Shams
[/quote]m0786 wrote:Dear Pardesimy ultimate source is the farman of the Imam - wherein I am told that the Quran is incomplete.
Agree or disagreewith this statement?
The topic of "completeness of Quran" has been a major reason for distrust and disunity (among other things) between the Sunnis and the Shiiats. I will have a thorough response later on as I am pre-occupied with my worldly affairs at the moment. I will have to refer to my collection of material on this subject.
Just to answer your question in simple terms - If my Imam said it, I have no reason to believe otherwise and therefore I agree 100% with the above quote. I also see you have a partner now in Arshad. Is he by any chance Najmi?
Arshad1988 wrote:
“If there was something important to be said, it would have been conveyed, as Allah stated that the deen was perfected (Quran - 5:4). Hence, if there was something left out, it would not have been perfected.
Also, was not the Prophet (upon whom be peace) illiterate? How could he have written something down if he could not read or write?
I believe that in all secondary documents of Islam, there is an element of human error, either from mistake or others having their own agenda to create mischief or disunity.
The only document which does not contain discrepancies is the Glorious Qur'an.
4:82. Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.”
I believe you are referring to the request of “paper and pen” by the Prophet on his death bed which sadly was denied to him by one of the “rightly guided”, muslims hold so dear and high. The way this hadith has come down to us, it appears that the Prophet wanted to write something. We all know he was illiterate and could not write. Is it not possible that he wanted to dictate to a scribe what he had in mind?
It is obvious that the revelations ceased after the perfection of deen verse in 5:3 (and not 5:4 as you mentioned). For the record this verse in 5:3 was inserted here where it does not make any sense. This verse came down right after the ghadir-e-khum event and after 5:67 was revealed to the Prophet some time around or after the last hajj. Verse 5:67 warns the Prophet to deliver what was entrusted to him which obviously the Prophet had not done yet. What was it that was so important that without its conveying the prophet was in danger of jeopardizing his whole prophethood?
If you read 5:3 and 5:4 you will see that Allah is talking about the halal and haram foods and here in the middle of this verse Allah says that “This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam.”
Its is obvious that this part does not belong here and how is it that the scribes made such a mistake of inserting it here when this verse is talking about something completely different and of the highest importance. Were they not more knowledgeable about Quran and its verses more than you and me? Was deen-e-Islam based on arguments about halal and haram after clarifying which Allah was pleased and said He has perfected the Deen? You can argue that this verse was inserted before the end verse of 5:3 on prophet’s instructions but we all know the Prophet would not have made such a blunder.
You are absolutely correct when you said that “the only document which does not contain discrepancies is the Glorious Qur’an”. The question is which Quran? The one that was revealed or the one that was put together in haste by humans? To err is human which Allah is absolutely clear of. So it is very much possible that errors were made in the way the Quran was put together, whether intentionally or unintentionally only Allah knows. There are atleast two known versions that have existed. One put together by Hz.Abu Bakr and Hz. Umar and then the later version with corrections and according to some muslim sources with omissions put together in the time of Hz. Uthman without any input from Hz. Ali who was considered to be the foremost authority over Quranic knowledge after the Prophet. At best the current Quran is a book (like thereof) written with consensus of a committee of four with the blessings of Caliph Uthman. What is mind blowing is why would the first three Khalifas refuse to even look at the Quran put together by Hz. Ali? When Allah said in the Quran verse 75:17 "The responsibility of its collection and its arrangement lies on Us" what gave the first three Khalifas the authority to take it upon themselves to produce a “like thereof”?
There is another version which was recently unearthed in Sana’a, Yemen in 1972 called the Sana’a manuscripts. These parchments have been scientifically dated as far back as 1st year after Hijra and most of them around the mid 7th Century. The government of Yemen in collaboration with the Saudis have been able to keep a tight lid on this discovery and details of which Puin says are different than what we have today as “The Quran”.
Here I am pasting a link to an article from a “muslim” source which talks about the omissions made in Uthmanic version of Quran.
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/8.html
There is no end to this controversy. If Quran was at least in chronological order we would have half the problems we have now between us. The differing views have only lead to finger pointing and divided the Ummah. You have your views and we have ours. Lets give it a rest. The choice is yours.
“If there was something important to be said, it would have been conveyed, as Allah stated that the deen was perfected (Quran - 5:4). Hence, if there was something left out, it would not have been perfected.
Also, was not the Prophet (upon whom be peace) illiterate? How could he have written something down if he could not read or write?
I believe that in all secondary documents of Islam, there is an element of human error, either from mistake or others having their own agenda to create mischief or disunity.
The only document which does not contain discrepancies is the Glorious Qur'an.
4:82. Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.”
I believe you are referring to the request of “paper and pen” by the Prophet on his death bed which sadly was denied to him by one of the “rightly guided”, muslims hold so dear and high. The way this hadith has come down to us, it appears that the Prophet wanted to write something. We all know he was illiterate and could not write. Is it not possible that he wanted to dictate to a scribe what he had in mind?
It is obvious that the revelations ceased after the perfection of deen verse in 5:3 (and not 5:4 as you mentioned). For the record this verse in 5:3 was inserted here where it does not make any sense. This verse came down right after the ghadir-e-khum event and after 5:67 was revealed to the Prophet some time around or after the last hajj. Verse 5:67 warns the Prophet to deliver what was entrusted to him which obviously the Prophet had not done yet. What was it that was so important that without its conveying the prophet was in danger of jeopardizing his whole prophethood?
If you read 5:3 and 5:4 you will see that Allah is talking about the halal and haram foods and here in the middle of this verse Allah says that “This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam.”
Its is obvious that this part does not belong here and how is it that the scribes made such a mistake of inserting it here when this verse is talking about something completely different and of the highest importance. Were they not more knowledgeable about Quran and its verses more than you and me? Was deen-e-Islam based on arguments about halal and haram after clarifying which Allah was pleased and said He has perfected the Deen? You can argue that this verse was inserted before the end verse of 5:3 on prophet’s instructions but we all know the Prophet would not have made such a blunder.
You are absolutely correct when you said that “the only document which does not contain discrepancies is the Glorious Qur’an”. The question is which Quran? The one that was revealed or the one that was put together in haste by humans? To err is human which Allah is absolutely clear of. So it is very much possible that errors were made in the way the Quran was put together, whether intentionally or unintentionally only Allah knows. There are atleast two known versions that have existed. One put together by Hz.Abu Bakr and Hz. Umar and then the later version with corrections and according to some muslim sources with omissions put together in the time of Hz. Uthman without any input from Hz. Ali who was considered to be the foremost authority over Quranic knowledge after the Prophet. At best the current Quran is a book (like thereof) written with consensus of a committee of four with the blessings of Caliph Uthman. What is mind blowing is why would the first three Khalifas refuse to even look at the Quran put together by Hz. Ali? When Allah said in the Quran verse 75:17 "The responsibility of its collection and its arrangement lies on Us" what gave the first three Khalifas the authority to take it upon themselves to produce a “like thereof”?
There is another version which was recently unearthed in Sana’a, Yemen in 1972 called the Sana’a manuscripts. These parchments have been scientifically dated as far back as 1st year after Hijra and most of them around the mid 7th Century. The government of Yemen in collaboration with the Saudis have been able to keep a tight lid on this discovery and details of which Puin says are different than what we have today as “The Quran”.
Here I am pasting a link to an article from a “muslim” source which talks about the omissions made in Uthmanic version of Quran.
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/8.html
There is no end to this controversy. If Quran was at least in chronological order we would have half the problems we have now between us. The differing views have only lead to finger pointing and divided the Ummah. You have your views and we have ours. Lets give it a rest. The choice is yours.
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
Surah 80
11. By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:
12. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.
13. (It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour,
14. Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,
15. (Written) by the hands of scribes-
16. Honourable and Pious and Just.
17. Woe to man! What hath made him reject Allah.
18. From what stuff hath He created him?
19. From a sperm-drop: He hath created him, and then mouldeth him in due proportions;
20. Then doth He make His path smooth for him;
21. Then He causeth him to die, and putteth him in his grave;
22. Then, when it is His Will, He will raise him up (again).
23. By no means hath he fulfilled what Allah hath commanded him.
I have posted these set of verses in other next thread as well. It is your word against Allah. I think I will put my trust in His word. If He says that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just, and that the job of collecting it is on Him, the Exalted, what makes you say otherwise? I know I would be afraid of lifting my word against His revelation. I am still to come across clear proofs from within the Qur'an to demonstrate its 'corruptness'
What will you have to tell Him on the Day, where you will be judged for what you say in regards to His Book, when clear proofs have been provided to you? Just because YOU don't believe a part of the Qur'an shouldn't be there because because it doesn't make sense to YOU, doesn't mean that it is not in the order commanded by Him, because it has been guaranteed by Him. Allow me to demonstrate:
17. Inna AAalayna jamAAahu waqur-anahu
17. It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it:
The word I have bolded is a very powerful word in the Arabic language. It can be loosely translated as 'verily,' or 'certainly' - but it's use within the Qur'an is much more powerful. Its function is of course to give a sense of weight to what is going to be said. However, its function is also to remove any uncertainty. In particular, it is to remove any uncertainty from the sceptic, who does not believe what is about to be said. It's kind of like an oath. Hence, my belief for Qur'an being preserved as this powerful warning is what scares me to say otherwise.
Lastly, I'd just like to sayI also don't appreciate you referring to me as something I am not. I think it is very rude talking about me in the third person, but I forgive you because you might have said it out of frustration, or did not mean to say it in the manner in which you did. You don't need to judge me, it is He that will.
11. By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:
12. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.
13. (It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour,
14. Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,
15. (Written) by the hands of scribes-
16. Honourable and Pious and Just.
17. Woe to man! What hath made him reject Allah.
18. From what stuff hath He created him?
19. From a sperm-drop: He hath created him, and then mouldeth him in due proportions;
20. Then doth He make His path smooth for him;
21. Then He causeth him to die, and putteth him in his grave;
22. Then, when it is His Will, He will raise him up (again).
23. By no means hath he fulfilled what Allah hath commanded him.
I have posted these set of verses in other next thread as well. It is your word against Allah. I think I will put my trust in His word. If He says that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just, and that the job of collecting it is on Him, the Exalted, what makes you say otherwise? I know I would be afraid of lifting my word against His revelation. I am still to come across clear proofs from within the Qur'an to demonstrate its 'corruptness'
What will you have to tell Him on the Day, where you will be judged for what you say in regards to His Book, when clear proofs have been provided to you? Just because YOU don't believe a part of the Qur'an shouldn't be there because because it doesn't make sense to YOU, doesn't mean that it is not in the order commanded by Him, because it has been guaranteed by Him. Allow me to demonstrate:
17. Inna AAalayna jamAAahu waqur-anahu
17. It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it:
The word I have bolded is a very powerful word in the Arabic language. It can be loosely translated as 'verily,' or 'certainly' - but it's use within the Qur'an is much more powerful. Its function is of course to give a sense of weight to what is going to be said. However, its function is also to remove any uncertainty. In particular, it is to remove any uncertainty from the sceptic, who does not believe what is about to be said. It's kind of like an oath. Hence, my belief for Qur'an being preserved as this powerful warning is what scares me to say otherwise.
Lastly, I'd just like to sayI also don't appreciate you referring to me as something I am not. I think it is very rude talking about me in the third person, but I forgive you because you might have said it out of frustration, or did not mean to say it in the manner in which you did. You don't need to judge me, it is He that will.
Arshad1988,
"I think I will put my trust in His word. If He says that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just, and that the job of collecting it is on Him, the Exalted, what makes you say otherwise?"
I know it is mentioned in the Quran that Allah has taken it upon Himself to collect and promulgate but nowhere have I read that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just. I dont know what have you been reading but it is not in the Quran that I have. Are you referring to "rasikoon fil ilm"?
I did not mean any disrespect to you nor did I address you in the third person in any of my posts. If I hurt your feelings, I apologize. We are debating here and so long as we keep within the fold of decency and respect for each others' beliefs, I think we will both learn from each other.
Pardesi
"I think I will put my trust in His word. If He says that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just, and that the job of collecting it is on Him, the Exalted, what makes you say otherwise?"
I know it is mentioned in the Quran that Allah has taken it upon Himself to collect and promulgate but nowhere have I read that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just. I dont know what have you been reading but it is not in the Quran that I have. Are you referring to "rasikoon fil ilm"?
I did not mean any disrespect to you nor did I address you in the third person in any of my posts. If I hurt your feelings, I apologize. We are debating here and so long as we keep within the fold of decency and respect for each others' beliefs, I think we will both learn from each other.
Pardesi
It's actually your word against that of the Imam..and frankly ..He outranks and outweighs you.arshad1988 wrote:Surah 80
11. By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:
12. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.
13. (It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour,
14. Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,
15. (Written) by the hands of scribes-
16. Honourable and Pious and Just.
17. Woe to man! What hath made him reject Allah.
18. From what stuff hath He created him?
19. From a sperm-drop: He hath created him, and then mouldeth him in due proportions;
20. Then doth He make His path smooth for him;
21. Then He causeth him to die, and putteth him in his grave;
22. Then, when it is His Will, He will raise him up (again).
23. By no means hath he fulfilled what Allah hath commanded him.
I have posted these set of verses in other next thread as well. It is your word against Allah. I think I will put my trust in His word. If He says that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just, and that the job of collecting it is on Him, the Exalted, what makes you say otherwise? I know I would be afraid of lifting my word against His revelation. I am still to come across clear proofs from within the Qur'an to demonstrate its 'corruptness'
What will you have to tell Him on the Day, where you will be judged for what you say in regards to His Book, when clear proofs have been provided to you? Just because YOU don't believe a part of the Qur'an shouldn't be there because because it doesn't make sense to YOU, doesn't mean that it is not in the order commanded by Him, because it has been guaranteed by Him. Allow me to demonstrate:
17. Inna AAalayna jamAAahu waqur-anahu
17. It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it:
The word I have bolded is a very powerful word in the Arabic language. It can be loosely translated as 'verily,' or 'certainly' - but it's use within the Qur'an is much more powerful. Its function is of course to give a sense of weight to what is going to be said. However, its function is also to remove any uncertainty. In particular, it is to remove any uncertainty from the sceptic, who does not believe what is about to be said. It's kind of like an oath. Hence, my belief for Qur'an being preserved as this powerful warning is what scares me to say otherwise.
Lastly, I'd just like to sayI also don't appreciate you referring to me as something I am not. I think it is very rude talking about me in the third person, but I forgive you because you might have said it out of frustration, or did not mean to say it in the manner in which you did. You don't need to judge me, it is He that will.
You're choosing to believe what some scholar put out there..than that of the Present Living Imam....to whom you gave ba'yah?
Remember that the institution of Imamah predates the the Quran...keep that in mind.
Shams
-
arshad1988
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:02 am
- Contact:
I had posted the surah and ayah numbers up above. I will post again.pardesi wrote:Arshad1988,
"I think I will put my trust in His word. If He says that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just, and that the job of collecting it is on Him, the Exalted, what makes you say otherwise?"
I know it is mentioned in the Quran that Allah has taken it upon Himself to collect and promulgate but nowhere have I read that they were written in the hands of scribes which were just. I dont know what have you been reading but it is not in the Quran that I have. Are you referring to "rasikoon fil ilm"?
I did not mean any disrespect to you nor did I address you in the third person in any of my posts. If I hurt your feelings, I apologize. We are debating here and so long as we keep within the fold of decency and respect for each others' beliefs, I think we will both learn from each other.
Pardesi
Surah 80
11. By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:
12. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.
13. (It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour,
14. Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,
15. (Written) by the hands of scribes-
16. Honourable and Pious and Just.
17. Woe to man! What hath made him reject Allah.
It is not a 'scholar' out there it is Allah that said it. You might not like my approach, but I would like to see actual discrepancies in the Qur'an before I can reject it as being 'corrupt.'ShamsB wrote: It's actually your word against that of the Imam..and frankly ..He outranks and outweighs you.
You're choosing to believe what some scholar put out there..than that of the Present Living Imam....to whom you gave ba'yah?
Remember that the institution of Imamah predates the the Quran...keep that in mind.
Shams