Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

reply to post by logical7


Yep, that Hadith that you just mentioned says "Ahruf" and not "qira'at".

The modern seven recitations are the "Qira'at", not the "Ahura".

The greatest fallacy of Muslims regarding Muhammd's approval of seven variations is that Muhammad spoke of seven "Ahruf", where as today Muslims incorrectly think the seven modern "Qira'at" (Schools of Recitation) are the "Ahruf".

Two purely different things.

Anyone who thinks that Muhammad's "Seven Ahruf" are the same thing as today's "Seven Qira'at" are deeply mistaken and in deed of further research and education.

edit on 8/22/13 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

reply to post by dragonridr

Ok this makes no sense if he was told to preference one over the other logic tells us at the very least the wording was different and left room for interpretation.

lets make a distinction here. The copy with Hafsa r.a was already present that was compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit r.a when Uthman r.a had a problem that non-arabs were reciting in different ways and it was causing confusion.
He called Zaid ibn Thabit and told to make an official text and wherever a difference in recitation happens should prefer the Quraysh dialect.
The 7 ways were know. Uthman r.a just made the Quraysh way as official to achieve uniformity. The other ways are all known and preserved and taught to anyone interested to learn.

This kinda makes sense the only
pause i would have would be is
religions dont destroy things they
dont want you see they hide them
look at the vatican for example. But i
guess at the time they really were not an organized religion. So kinda makes
sense.

it makes complete sense actually. The various scattered parchments etc could not be verified as correct before letting them stay with the owners, it would be a logistic nightmare. The owners agreed with the standard copy and destroyed their as it wasnt needed anymore.
Marwar destroyed the copy in his posession for the same reason, it wouldnt have made a difference, he just leaned to the safer side.
Hafsa r.a. kept her copy till her death and nobody forced her to destroy it. People who have something to hide don't make such errors

also don't forget that there were thousands of reciters who knew the Qur'an by memory and the copies were just a back up in case the oral tradition got affected by sudden death of many reciters and it was made for the benefit of non-arab people who had not heard the Qur'an but relied on the copy to learn to recite. Uthman r.a. Also sent reciters with his copies to teach the correct recitation.

reply to post by dragonridr

Well again saying people would think there were diffrences obviously means there were differences he just probably looked at them as grammatical errors.

thats very weak and even wrong logic but you are entitled to your opinion. Zaid ibn Tabhit must have destroyed his own collection that he wrote in the presence of the Prophet. Was that to hide differences? Its just pure common sense and the desire to take utmost care that a single authentic Qur'an stays and the errors of jews and christians are not repeated. In a way muslims learnt from the mistakes of others.

Ah the battle of siffin it was interesting
actually i all ways suspected there
were two different versions of the
Koran heres why. When Mu'awiya tells
his soldiers to put 500 Korans on
spears they do it. I never understood this part his soldiers were willing to
risk the wrath of Allah. This is why i
suspected there were different
versions and his soldiers really didnt
mind it because they didnt believe it
was there Koran. Some how he got his soldiers to believe that wasnt the
Koran just not sure how.
Wouldnt this claim be an ultimate
justification used if anybody even
doubted?

thats your twisted view. The very simple reason is that even with political differences that were enough to make them kill each other, both sides respected the Qur'an so much that they wudnt attack for the fear of disrespecting it.

After all this was the split
between Sunni and Shia and each
accuse the other of lying.

nobody accused Uthman r.a. about changing Qur'an. Qur'an's authenticity was never the topic of disagreements.

reply to post by logical7

so the reciters in 7 ways were born after the Prophet? hmm.. TELL ME ALL ABOUT IT PLEASE

The seven mainstream Reciters (qurra) and their lifespans are:

1. Nafi ibn Abdul-Rahman (died in 169 AH)

2. Abu Ma'bad Abdullah ibn Kathir (died in 120 AH)

3. Abdullah ibn Amir (died in 118 AH)

4. Abu Amr Zuban ibn al-Ala (died in 154 AH)

5. Abu Bakr, Aasim Ibn Abi al-Najud al-Asad (died in 127 AH)

6. Abu Imarah Hamza ibn Habib (died in 156 AH)

7. Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Hamzah al-Kisa'i (died in 189 AH)



Prophet Muhammad died in 11 AH.

See the gap? These seven are the "Qira'at" (recitations/readings). They are not the seven "Ahruf" (variant modes) that were approved by Muhammad.

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by logical7

 

so the reciters in 7 ways were born after the Prophet? hmm.. TELL ME ALL ABOUT IT PLEASE

The seven mainstream Reciters (qurra) and their lifespans are:

1. Nafi ibn Abdul-Rahman (died in 169 AH)

2. Abu Ma'bad Abdullah ibn Kathir (died in 120 AH)

3. Abdullah ibn Amir (died in 118 AH)

4. Abu Amr Zuban ibn al-Ala (died in 154 AH)

5. Abu Bakr, Aasim Ibn Abi al-Najud al-Asad (died in 127 AH)

6. Abu Imarah Hamza ibn Habib (died in 156 AH)

7. Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Hamzah al-Kisa'i (died in 189 AH)

 

Prophet Muhammad died in 11 AH.

See the gap? These seven are the "Qira'at" (recitations/readings). They are not the seven "Ahruf" (variant modes) that were approved by Muhammad.

edit on 8/22/13 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

you meant the 7 who got famous. They werent the inventors of those recitations and must have learnt from the companions.

Do you really believe the things you are presenting are proofs?

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by racasan

 

Your first link calls it hasan (good) by two people, one of those two were the authors of the compilation that narration is from. The link you linked me to one the first link also goes into great detail as to why it is not a verse from the Quran which is lost and why it is not a proof of alteration of the Quran...

Your own source called your bluff in other words by saying that that hadith does not say what you are trying to say.....

Not getting into the second link at all since the second link is not an Islamic sight but one which promotes the hatred of Islam... Main page states that the website is concerning "The politically incorrect truth about Islam, one really messed up religion" No point in getting into that since that is where you are getting all this incorrect information from in the first place...

Ok slow down a minute now i havnt really read any Hadiths more skimmed some so you twocan help me if im understanding this we have a hadith which states its missing but an imam said it was no big deal. One of you please explain why im lost.

Muslims do not read and accept ahadith in the same way we accept Quran. We see Quran as without err and as the perfect speech of God, and seek to understand its meaning when we read it...

Not so with ahadith. The word hadith means tradition or narration.... Let me explain what hadith are.

Hypothetically, we are all sitting in a room talking about this topic. I hear something you say and go and tell my husband what you have said. My husband in turn tells his friend what you have said and the friend tells his father. The father then tells his co-worker and then perhaps the co-worker writes it down at this point because what you said was important.

That is a hadith and it has two parts to it. The content, and the chain of narrators. Both parts of any hadith need to be examined thoroughly. The content itself, does the content contradict anything you would normally say? Does it sound like your known manner of speech? Does it sound like things were interjected into your words? And so on and so forth for content...

many difficulties in content alone can be said to weaken the hadith...

As to chain of narrators, a bad link in the chain can mean many things. Is there a person in the chain who happens to be a known liar similar to Sorcha Faal? if so, then you have to question the validity of the content itself as Sorcha Faal could have made the hole thing up, or changed your words to suit themselves and their agenda.... Is there a person in the chain who may have been known to have a poor memory? Perhaps that person who is known to have a poor memory did not remember all the words exactly as they were told to them....

many things concerning the chain of narrators can "weaken" the hadith....

Now, if you have this same senario you also have the potential for the same hadith to be related through many different "chains" the chain through myself is one chain.... but other people were there too. Maybe what you said was so profound as to be told by sabahi to his freind and his freind told his co-worker and his co-worker told his freind and so forth.... that is said to be the same ahadith with a different chain of narrators...

when both hadith have the exact same content through different chains, it can stengthen the hadith even if it is something out of character for you to have said..... but it the content is slightly different, say there is an extra sentence added to mine, it can potentially weaken the ahadith. Now of course there is the possibility that I related some extra bit that sabahi did not....so this is taken into consideration...

but if we add two more chains to this ahadith, a chain of narrators through logical7 and another chain of narrators through you, and ONLY my version has the extra bit of different content, then the hadith that has the chain of narrators that goes through me will be weakened and not trusted as being a factual account of the conversation that had taken place between us.

That is all the things that goes into looking at ahadith.... there is an entire science that surrounds the examination of ahadith.... this is what the scholars of ahadith do, they closely examine language and chain of narrators.

The ahadith I discussed with the other poster had the problem that I mentioned above... it had multiple chains of narrators, but one of the chains had an extra sentence thrown in, the sentence about the goat was extra in only one of the chains. One of the people in that particular chain is known to manipulate what was said in many of the things they related in other ahadith, thus making that chain weak... in arabic it is called daif.

We would not accept that hadith as being a fact as a result.

Sorry double post!

reply to post by dragonridr


To continue explaining.... (sorry this is going to take two posts!)

You also have to examine the scholars who judge the ahadith.... perhaps they do not want to weaken a particular narrator who other scholars have weakened for their own reasons.... maybe there are three ahadith narrated through this weak narrator that some particular scholar really really really like.... in effort not to weaken those ahadith they do like, they will refuse to be critical of a bad narrator...

This is a serious problem in sunni ahadith (but then I am shia so what can you say?... lol) Many of the Sunni scholars will say a bad narrator is strong so they do not loose the ahadith they happen to like or agree with....You see this regularly in the books bukhari and muslim.... narrators in those books who have called themselves liars and manipulators of ahadith are considered strong narrators and ahadith that they have narrated have been given the status of sahih (that means really really strong)

So looking at the scholar who has either strengthened or weakened the ahadith needs to be taken into consideration.... what was their agenda? needs to be asked....

One of the points I mentioned in my refutation of that hadith had to do with the agenda of one of the people who strengthened the hadith that member posted... ie: that scholar was the author of that compilation of ahadith... he may not have known of the other chains and the other versions of the same hadith, he may not have known much about that particular narrator.. and lastly....of course he is going to say all the ahadith he put into that compilation were great choices..

And the second scholar who strengthened that hadith also explained why while he felt the chain to be good, he felt due to circumstance and wording of the ahadith itself that the meaning was not to be taken as there being any manipulation of the Quran....

Although if I were to judge that scholar, I would say he had a definite agenda toward keeping that hadith strong, but I do figure coming from a shia that would hold little weight since it could be said I have an agenda in so saying... so I did not bother going there... but I could

and this is the conclusion of todays lesson in the science of ahadith... Have a nice day....

reply to post by logical7


Those seven reciters (qurra) established the recitations (qira'at) by their student transmitters. Before those reciters (qurra) became established, they had a simple chain of recitations,... so-and-so taught this guy,... then that guy taught this other guy,.... and then that guy taught me, so here is my established recitation (qira'at).

This is still different than the seven "ahruf" (variant modes) that Muhammad approved of.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Muhammad's seven ahruf are not the same thing as the seven qira'at. Just because they share the number "seven" doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by logical7

 

Yep, that Hadith that you just mentioned says "Ahruf" and not "qira'at".

The modern seven recitations are the "Qira'at", not the "Ahura".

The greatest fallacy of Muslims regarding Muhammd's approval of seven variations is that Muhammad spoke of seven "Ahruf", where as today Muslims incorrectly think the seven modern "Qira'at" (Schools of Recitation) are the "Ahruf".

Two purely different things.

Anyone who thinks that Muhammad's "Seven Ahruf" are the same thing as today's "Seven Qira'at" are deeply mistaken and in deed of further research and education.

edit on 8/22/13 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

a simple wikipedia search gave this

Difference Between Ahruf and
Qira'at

Bilal Philips writes that the Qur'an continued to be read
according to the seven ahruf
until midway through Caliph
'Uthman's rule when some
confusion arose in the outlying
provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab
tribes had begun to boast
about the superiority of their
ahruf and a rivalry began to
develop. At the same time,
some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of
recitation out of ignorance.
Caliph 'Uthman decided to
make official copies of the
Qur'an according to the writing
conventions of the Quraysh and send them along with the
Qur'anic reciters to the major
centres of Islam. This decision
was approved by Sahaabah
and all unofficial copies of the
Qur'an were destroyed. Uthman burned the unofficial
copies of the Quran. Following
the distribution of the official
copies, all the other ahruf were
dropped and the Qur'an began
to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is
available throughout the world
today is written and recited
only according to the harf of Quraysh.

Zaid ibn Thabit r.a. heard the Prophet recite the whole Qur'an to Jibrael in the harf of Quraysh and thats the Qur'an we know now.

Others ahruf maybe academically known but you cannot claim that the Qur'an is corrupted as any of the 7 ways is just fine.

reply to post by Sahabi


another excerpt from wikipedia

Ghamidi on the other hand while commenting on hadith in Muwatta[1] writes that if Ahruf are taken in the context of pronunciation (for which actual words are lughat and lahjat), then the content of the hadith rejects this meaning itself as it is known that Umar and Hisham belonged to the same tribe - Quraysh, and people from same tribe cannot have different pronunciation. Hence, he question those hadith which purport "variant readings". He also insists on the basis of Quranic verses ([Quran 87:6 ], [Quran 75:16 ]) that Qur'an was compiled in the life of Muhammad, hence he questions those hadith which report compilation of Qur'an in Uthman's period.[3] As most of these narrations are reported by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, Imam Layth Ibn Sa‘d in his letter to Imam Malik has written:
"And when we would meet
Ibn Shihab, there would
arise a difference of opinion
in many issues. When any
one of us would ask him in
writing about some issue, he, in spite of being so
learned, would give three
very different answers, and
he would not even be
aware of what he had
already said. It is because of this that I have left him –
something which you did
not like."

reply to post by logical7


Did you even read what you just posted? Your information agrees with what I have been saying!!!!

1. Muhammad approved of seven "Ahruf" (variant modes) of the Quran.

2. Uthman annihilated the seven "Ahruf" by standardizing Qurayshi dialect.

3. The seven "qira'at" (schools of recitation) are based upon Uthman's Qurayshi dialect Qur'an.

4. Muhammad's seven Ahruf are lost.

reply to post by logical7


You do not read or take the time to digest what I write, do you? This is your second consecutive post repeating what I already said earlier!!

Just three hours ago in this post I explained that "Ahruf" is not dialect, or region because of the evidence of Umar and Hisham's argument.

Uthman killed the seven "Ahruf" of Muhammad. Now what remains in its place are the seven "Qira'at" of Uthman.

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by logical7

 

Those seven reciters (qurra) established the recitations (qira'at) by their student transmitters. Before those reciters (qurra) became established, they had a simple chain of recitations,... so-and-so taught this guy,... then that guy taught this other guy,.... and then that guy taught me, so here is my established recitation (qira'at).

This is still different than the seven "ahruf" (variant modes) that Muhammad approved of.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Muhammad's seven ahruf are not the same thing as the seven qira'at. Just because they share the number "seven" doesn't mean they are the same thing.

so now you acknowledge that the 7 qiraat can be traced back to the Prophet and the 7 qaari you mentioned were not the inventors as you tried to push.
I have already mentioned that the Uthmani Qur'an is in the harf of Quraysh as Zaid ibn Thabit heard the Prophet recite it to Jibrael a.s.

So now what exactly will you disagree on after this?
And imagine the information to refute you was available on wikipedia. Under whom did you learn?
Just curious to know the name of your teacher/s.

reply to post by Sahabi

3. The seven "qira'at" (schools of recitation) are based upon Uthman's Qurayshi dialect Qur'an.

dialect is similar to qiraat right?
Isnt it more logical to say that the 7 qiraat are based on Quraysh harf?
Makes more sense.

reply to post by logical7


You did not refute anything

The seven reciters (qurra) are purely based upon Uthman's Qurayshi Qur'an. Muslims only have recitations based upon Uthman's monopolized Qur'an. Where are Muhammad's seven "Ahruf"? Uthman destroyed them.

The founders of the seven schools of recitation only hold chain of narration to Uthma's Qur'an, and not Muhammad's seven Ahruf.

Do you not understand this is an Uthmani take-over? Muhammad's seven Ahruf are gone, why can't you understand that?

reply to post by Sahabi

Uthman killed the seven "Ahruf" of Muhammad. Now what remains in its place are the seven "Qira'at" of Uthman.

oh thats dramatic!
How about some proof?

Let me see.
There are 7 ahruf and 7 qira'at.
Uthman asked Zaid to use the Quraysh harf.
How is it KILLED then?

so you are claiming that Uthman asked to use Quraysh dialect.
Again, can you bring the proof?

Hope you keep the words ahruf, dialect, qiraat, recitation different.

I am no scholar. I am just logical7
sorry if my questions are many, hope either you'l prove yourself to me or retract your claim and accept that Quran is incorruptible.

reply to post by logical7


Umar is of the Quraysh Tribe from Mecca.

Hisham is of the Quraysh Tribe from Mecca.

These two argued over the different "Ahruf" of Qur'an. Clearly "Ahruf" and "harf" do not mean dialect!!!!

"Ahruf" is the plural of "harf". These words mean difference and variation. They do not mean dialect or recitation (Qira'at).

reply to post by logical7

so you are claiming that Uthman asked to use Quraysh dialect.
Again, can you bring the proof?

Hafsa's Qur'an was not identical to Uthman's, proven when Uthman said; "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."(Sahih al-Bukhari 6.510).

This is also proof that Uthman destroyed the Seven Ahruf (Variant Modes) that Muhammad approved of. The seven ahruf ARE NOT the same as the Seven Qira'at (school of recitation).

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by logical7

 

You did not refute anything

The seven reciters (qurra) are purely based upon Uthman's Qurayshi Qur'an. Muslims only have recitations based upon Uthman's monopolized Qur'an. Where are Muhammad's seven "Ahruf"? Uthman destroyed them.

The founders of the seven schools of recitation only hold chain of narration to Uthma's Qur'an, and not Muhammad's seven Ahruf.

Do you not understand this is an Uthmani take-over? Muhammad's seven Ahruf are gone, why can't you understand that?

edit on 8/22/13 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

Slow down!
You are going ahead of yourself.
Seems like an evolving claim to me.

Chain of narrations just till Uthmani Qur'an? Thats another fascinating claim.
You know Mutuwatir?
The whole Qur'an is accepted Mutuwatir, that is the oral chain can be traced back to the Prophet by countless chains and all report it the same way. The Uthmani Qur'an doesnt even need to come into picture.

Uthmani take-over another interesting word and claim.
Btw if it was, The companions just accepted it, his enemies never mentioned or used it to justify demand his removal.
Did Uthman r.a. manage to hoodwink each muslim into this grandest and most stealthy take-over so much so that even his blood thirsty enemies accepted it.

The unbreaking tradition of reciters did not have to rely upon a written Qur'an.
During the time of Prophet(when he was alive) the Qur'an was spread far and wide. A take-over is impossible without "silencing" any who had even learnt a single chapter.
Muslims recite the Qur'anic verses 5 times a day in salah. I have not heard any report that the muslims suddenly had to change their recitation after Uthmani Qur'an was made available.

A small question, why didnt you just put this as your OP and it would have saved everyones time and is easily refutable.

This is the extract of your deep study?