This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 02:43 pm Nour: This is in reply to your message on the other folder. First, here are some ahadith regarding the Stoning Verse: --Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." Narrated by Ibn Abbas: "In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him." There are some others in other ahadith collections, but they pretty much say the same thing, so let's stick with these two since the come from Sahih Bukhari. About the "Authentication Rank", I am pretty sure that Ibn Abbas and Umar bin Khattab are trustworthy, and I think that the isnad for this particular Tradition is very solid. What's more, many scholars relate and discuss it, and the question has always been not whether it's authentic, but whether the verse is part of the Qru'an or not. You wrote: <Yes, there is/are Ahadith( I have to check the text and their Authentication Rank) said that there was a verse whose text is abrogated but it's meaning is made valid as a Law of the Stoning(to whom it applies and when is onather story). This puts an emphasis(stamp) on this law(This Law almost became a verse in the Qur'an). Allah knew people like PG will be calling it barbaric that is why that extra emphasis was put.> That's daft. One, I thought the Qur'an was eternal and uncreated. How can something "almost become a verse" in the Qur'an? And how can something be abrogated from the perfect, eternal Book of God? Two, Umar is not saying that it's "almost a verse", he's saying that he and the Prophet and his companions used to RECITE IT AS PART OF THE QUR'AN. Three, if Allah wanted to "protect" a Law from people like PG, then He would put it in the Qur'an, to make sure that there's no doubt that it's a law binding on all Muslims. In fact, that's what Umar was worried about. He knew it was part of the Qur'an; he knew people would be less likely to practice it if it weren't; and he FEARED that people would deny it's authenticity because it's not in the Qur'an! And finally, what the hell is your God doing? Today, he writes something in his ETERNAL, UNCHANGING, UNCREATED Book, and tomorrow he removes it, BUT he says the Law is still applicable. What, he was doing some divine editing? He likes the law, but the verse is just not right? And what proof is there that this verse was abrogated anyway? There's one measly hadith that doesn't make any sense, and that's all it took to remove the words of god from his own book? <This Law is the used the most and always mentioned against Islam. They talk as though all Islam is this law, they take as a seperate entity without considering other facts and how frequently is implemented in the history of Islam.> Islam contains many laws that are cruel, barbaric absurd and/or distasteful, but I didn't bring up this particular law as an example of what's wrong with Islamic Law. I just wanted to know what in the world is going on: The Qur'an is supposed to be perfectly preserved and of high textual integrity, yet this and many other examples show that it's the arbitrary collection of the sayings of one man, as related by his companions and those who came after him. Kind of like the Hadith, but with more oomph! But perhaps you have a good reason for why this verse was removed from the Qur'an.
|
| | Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 06:02 pm PG It's kind late for me. But I can't help but to say something. See, I realized what going to do from your introduction? You drop some quick posts then the one you have been preparing/"researching" it for a long time( I put the quotes because I can see some "anonymous behavior"  . I have a question for you. The two Hadiths are different. The first Hadith is not talking about a verse at all( I don't know why you bring it here). The second one is the one talking about "verse". My question is where did you get the last Hadith?. This is the one you brought as evidence. You said: "these two since the come from Sahih Bukhari". You give a reference for the first one (that one is from Sahih Albukhari). Now I have Sahil Albukharo online looking for the second one and I can not find it. Please tell me the reference number for that hadith in Sahih Albukhari. Don't worry about the other one that has nothing to do with your case. You said: "What's more, many scholars relate and discuss it, and the question has always been not whether it's authentic, but whether the verse is part of the Qru'an or not" This is a big LIE. Another question of your "research" integrity. Can you provide me with any known Islamic Sheikh who said so and where did he say it???. We want to beleive you but help us here. Another question: If Umar knew there was a verse. Why did he worry? why did he said that people abondon this law saying:"We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," ??????. There are many laws mention in the qur'an why Umar only worried for this if it's in the Qur'an????. It looks like that you are shooting yourself in the foot. Did Umar knew that Osman is going to remove this verse in the Qur'an after him?? that is what you said ;"that was left out by Uthman and his cronies?" . I thought that you used to use "logic". to be continued........
|
| | Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 06:28 pm PG wrote: "One, I thought the Qur'an was eternal and uncreated. How can something "almost become a verse" in the Qur'an? And how can something be abrogated from the perfect, eternal Book of God?" First, The Quran is the word of god spoken by him and revealed to his messenger through Gabriel. And right, it is not created or a creation. Second, THE CONCEPT of abrogation or changing a commandment to replace it with another, is one acceptable to Allah FOR HE IS THE ONE almighty who promised if he changed(during the revelation) any verse, he would reveal and bring the replacement(better) than what had been abrogated. Or one that had similar commandments in it. And we read ALLAH'S WORDS IN THE QURAN WHERE HE SAID: "2:106 If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We replace it WITH a better one or one similar. Did you know that God has power over all things?. So, NOT SURPRISING. Apostates can cry foul if they want. PG wrote: "Islam contains many laws that are cruel, barbaric absurd and/or distasteful, but I didn't bring up this particular law as an example of what's wrong with Islamic Law". The truth of the matter is, why would someone cry foul about a law set to punish those who do wrong?. Or one set up to keep in check those who would make life miserable for the rest of the people by their indecency and perversion?. The law applies to the wrong doers and only a wrong doer hates what the law dictates. As far as barbarsim is concerned, I guess one has to check what other religions teach as a punishment for people who commit minor offenses. Need I quote?. Yes, I will, some other time inshallah. Before then, Apostates have to relax a little because I am working on it lol. PG writes: "The Qur'an is supposed to be perfectly preserved and of high textual integrity". The Quran is perfect in every sense. Just because PG doesn't like it or it gives her nightmares doesn't mean it is not. Allah is our best witness and so are the angels the witnesses of the Quranic perfection and that it is Allah's knowledge that it is based on for Allah knows what is best for mankind. "4.166 But Allah bears witness that what He had sent unto you He has sent from His (own) knowledge, and the angels bear witness: But enough is Allah for a witness.". "6.19 Say: "What thing is most weighty in evidence?" Say: "Allah is witness between me and you; This Qurán has been revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can you possibly bear witness that besides Allah there are other gods?" Say: "Nay! I cannot bear witness!" Say: "But in truth He is the One God, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him." PG wrote: "I just wanted to know what in the world is going on" What in the world is going on is the disbelief and the denial that settled in your heart, which forced you to plaspheme the way you do, and made you seek refuge in groundless and sometimes strange lies about Allah's religion. Only To prove what?. Your weakness and confusion. If you proved anything, you have proven the ways of OLD disbelievers WHO WHEN SENT A MESSENGER mocked his message and disbelieved in him. "15:10. We did send messengers before you amongst the sects of old: 11. But never came a messenger to them but they mocked him. 12. Even so do we let it creep into the hearts of the sinners - 13. They do not believe in the Message, such has been the way of those who went before them. PG, you are nothing but A tiny powerless human being in this world who owns nothing for herself let alone for anyone else. The best advice I have for you, is to be happy with your desbelief and enjoy it(if there is any enjoyment in cofusion and sadness).
|
| | Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 07:27 pm PG: I am in the middle of exams right now.This is the best you can come up with, lol? I was expecting you to come up with errors or contradictions, after all this is the challenge of the Quran. Instead you went to Muslim sources and confused your little mind with a field you are ill equipped to understand. This verse is not abrogated in the sense of abrogation, on the contrary Omar’s whole point is that it is still in effect. A small lesson in logic… The Quran is the word of Allah, The word of Allah is eternal and uncreated. However the words in the Quran are not the Only words of Allah. The words of Allah are (Inscribed) Al-Lauh Al-Mahfûz (The Preserved Tablet) Allah mentions in bakarah 106 about naskh (abrogation) with regards to commandments and prohibitions and permissions so on and so forth. Your research should be along the line of, the quran mentions the occurrences naskh but is no where to be found in the Quran. What you have attempted to do is prove the Quran correct. Galools example of the gradual prohibition of Alcohol is a more classical example of abrogation. Your questions (or accusation) is not that abrogation occurs but why does it occur. Simply put Human change is gradual and Allah in his wisdom and mercy prohibits or commands a matter in a manner fitting to human nature and capacity. Brother Nour pg 13 is right and her references both check out, she has attempted to prove verses 2:106 correct and other verses talking about the gradual revelation and nothing else. The Quran has Given you the kufaara specific challenge. Where are those destined to fail????
|
| | Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 07:58 pm 4. UMAR AND THE VERSES OF STONING FOR ADULTERY. One of the most well-known passages said in hadith records to be missing from the Qur'an relates to the so-called "stoning verses" wherein Muhammad is said to have been commanded to stone to death married people who commit adultery. The records all state that the second Caliph of Islam, Umar, once brought the existence of these missing verses to the attention of the Muslim public during one of his sermons from the minbar (the pulpit) of the mosque in Medina. Umar is reported as narrating the matter as follows: Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle (saw) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book', and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.539). In the Qur'an as it stands today the only punishment prescribed for adulterers is a hundred stripes (Surah 24.2), no distinction being made between the married or unmarried state of each of the parties involved. Umar, however, clearly stated that Allah had originally revealed a passage prescribing rajam (stoning to death) for adulterers. From the original Arabic text of the narrative in the Sahih of Bukhari as quoted above it can be seen quite clearly that Umar was convinced that this passage was originally a part of the Qur'an text. The key words are wa anzala alayhil-kitaaba fakaana mimmaa anzalallaahu aayaatur-rajm, meaning literally, "And He sent down to him the Scripture (viz. the Qur'an), and part of what Allah sent down (therein) was the verse of stoning". In another record of this incident we find that Umar added: "Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery, if proof stands or pregnancy is clear or confession is made" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.684). Both the records of the tradition in the Sahih of Bukhari and the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq add that Umar mentioned another missing verse which was once part of the kitabullah (viz. the Qur'an) which the earliest of Muhammad's companions used to recite, namely "O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief on your part to claim to be the offspring of other than your real father." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.540). In both narratives there is a prologue where we find Umar cautioning against any attempt to deny what he was saying, warning that those who could not accept what he was about to disclose were not thereby entitled to tell lies about him (that is, to say that he did not disclose it). He obviously was very serious about what he was doing and anticipated an adverse reaction from those Muslims of a later generation who were not aware of the missing verses which clearly contradicted the injunction in Surah 24.2, or that Muhammad had in fact stoned adulterers to death. That he did so is clear from the following hadith: Ibn Shihab reported that a man in the time of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) acknowledged having committed adultery and confessed it four times. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) then ordered and he was stoned. " (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.350). There are numerous other records of instances similar to this one where Muhammad had adulterers stoned to death. What was, in fact, the "Verse of Stoning"? It is mentioned in the following tradition: Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: "Ubayy ibn Ka'b said to me, 'What is the extent of Suratul-Ahzab?' I said, 'Seventy, or seventy-three verses'. He said, 'Yet it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of stoning'. I said, 'And what is the verse of stoning'? He replied, 'The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise."' (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524). Whereas the Qur'an makes no distinction in Surah 24.2 between the married or unmarried state of those who are guilty of fornication (it simply calls them az-zaaniyatu waz-zaanii - "the female and male fornicators" , the text as given in the above tradition only states that married men and women who are caught in adultery should be stoned (the actual meaning of the word is "old" or "adult" men and women, implying married persons). This has led to much discussion in Muslim writings about the meaning of the verse. The general understanding among Muslim scholars of earlier generations was that any portion of the Qur'an totally abrogated by Allah was also caused to be entirely forgotten (on the strength of Surah 2.106: nansakh ... aw nunsihaa naati - "abrogate ... or cause to be forgotten", the two being taken together as an entity). So when a verse was found to be retained in the memory of a companion as distinguished as Umar, it was assumed that, whereas the text may indeed have been withdrawn from the Qur'an, teaching and prescription found in it nevertheless binding as part of the sunnah of the Prophet of Islam. The dilemma was generally resolved by presuming that the Qur'anic command to impose one hundred stripes on fornicators applied only to unmarried persons, whereas married persons guilty of actual adultery were to be stoned according to the sunnah. Numerous other solutions to the issue have been proposed and the subject has been exhaustively treated in the various works of historical Islamic literature. We are not here concerned with the theological or legal implications of the doctrine of abrogation, however, but only with the actual compilation of the Qur'an text itself. The question here is, was this verse once a part of the Qur'an text or not and, if it was, why is it now omitted from its pages? From the traditions quoted thus far we can see that it was clearly regarded by Umar as part of the original Qur'an text, yet in another tradition we read that Umar had some hesitancy about it: Zaid ibn Thabit and Sa'id ibn al-As were writing out the mushaf (the written codex of the Qur'an) and when they came to this verse Zaid said, "I heard the messenger of Allah (saw) say: 'The adult men and women who commit adultery, stone them as a punishment"'. Umar said, "When it was revealed I went to the Prophet (saw) and said, 'Shall I write it?', but he seemed very reluctant". (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.528). This hadith, however, irrespective of its isnad (its chain of transmitters), has some obvious contradictions in its content (its matn). It places Umar with Zaid and Sa'id ibn al-As at the time when the Qur'an was being copied out by the latter two men together and, as this is known to have occurred at Uthman's instigation long after Umar's death, Umar could hardly have so discoursed with them. In any event most of the other hadith records make it quite plain that Umar had no doubt that the stoning verse was originally part of the Qur'an text and it was for this reason that he was so serious about its retention. It was occasionally argued that the hadith records of the existence of the stoning verse all attribute its origin to just one man, Umar, thus making it dependent on khabar al-wahid, the report of only one witness, and therefore unreliable. The prominence of that one witness, however, just could not be summarily ignored. It was no less a personality than Umar ibn al-Khattab, one of Muhammad's earliest and most well-known companions, who reported the existence of the verse which he claimed he received directly from Muhammad himself and, when such a report was given during his reign as Caliph over the whole Muslim community, it could not be disregarded or considered lightly. Nonetheless modern Muslim writers, determined to discount even the slightest possibility that anything originally revealed as part of the Qur'an text has now been omitted therefrom for whatever reason, seek to reject the claim that the stoning verse was ever part of the Qur'an. Siddique, for example, unable to simply brush the records aside, claims that Umar made a mistake! In the context of his comments on the stoning verse he says, "As for 'Umar (ra) we know that he was a great mujtahid, but he also made mistakes which are documented in the hadith" (Al-Balaagh, op,cit., p.2). On what grounds does a twentieth-century Muslim writer accuse the great Caliph of Islam, Umar ibn al-Khattab, of making a mistake about something he experienced directly during Muhammad's own lifetime? On no other ground than that Umar's disclosure undermines the popular Muslim sentiment that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved with nothing varied or omitted. He goes on to claim, like many other scholars, that Uthman was not talking of the Qur'an when he spoke of the command to stone adulterers as being part of the "Book of Allah" (kitabullah) but rather of the Tawraat as Muhammad is said in some of the hadith records to have stoned Jews who committed adultery according to the prescribed laws of their own scripture. The hadith records quite clearly state, however, that Umar claimed that the verse had been revealed to Muhammad and that he himself would have considered writing it into Allah's revealed scripture were it not that some people would have claimed that he was adding to it. He is recorded as saying: "See that you do not forget the verse about stoning and say: We do not find it in the Book of Allah; the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) had ordered stoning and we too have done so, after him. By the Lord Who holds possession of my life, if people should not accuse me of adding to the Book of Allah, I would have this transcribed therein: Ash-shaikhu wash-shaikhatu ithaa zanayaa faarjumuu humaa. We have read this verse". (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.352). As the verse is expressly said to have been revealed to Muhammad in the other hadith records, it is hard to see how Umar could have contemplated writing it into the Tawraat! The Caliph's total ignorance of the Hebrew language should also be given some consideration! Desai contradicts Siddique by freely acknowledging that the stoning verse was indeed a part of the original text of the Qur'an but, as he conveniently does with all texts now said to be omitted from the Qur'an, he claims that it was subsequently abrogated (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.48). Because its existence was preserved and as other records of Muhammad's capital punishment upon adulterers were also handed down in the hadith texts, he states that it was one of the mansukhut tilawah, that is, texts whose recitation has been cancelled while the laws expounded in them have been retained (op.cit.). Such verses, he points out, are unlike other Qur'anic texts where the recitation has been retained but the laws contained therein (the hukm, the "effects" have been cancelled and abrogated. Writers like Siddique immediately sense the weakness of such arguments and the consequent vulnerability of the Qur'an to the charge that it was undergoing some strange mutations in respect of the development of its text and teaching during the time of its deliverance. Only credulous conservative writers like Desai can fail to see that the doctrine of abrogation, in its various forms, has a deliberate weakening effect on the overall authenticity of the Qur'an text as it stands today. In any event there is nothing in Umar's declaration on the pulpit that day to suggest that the ayatur-rajm was ever abrogated. His bold statement that he would write it into the Qur'an himself were it not for the anticipated charge that he had tampered with the text is clear evidence that he considered it to be a valid passage whose exclusion from the Qur'an was to be regretted. Even if he had no hope of persuading the Muslim community to reinstate it in the text (particularly if it had formed a portion of a whole section that was lost), he was determined to publicise and establish its existence as part of the original Qur'an as delivered to Muhammad. The doctrine of abrogation is constantly shown up as a weak explanation of the disappearance of certain texts from the Qur'an. A good example can be found in a further hadith which was widely reported and which stated that the Qur'an originally contained a law forbidding marriage between two people who had been breastfed by the same woman. The Tradition reads as follows: A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (saw) died and before that time it was found in the Qur'an. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.740). It is clearly stated that the Qur'an had originally contained a verse prescribing a prohibition on the marriage of two people who had been breastfed by the same woman at least ten times. This verse was then abrogated and another was substituted for it, restricting the number to five. Where is this verse in the Qur'an? It too is missing - has it also been abrogated? If so, what came in its place? It is in traditions like these that the doctrine of abrogation is shown to be extremely vulnerable on closer analysis. One verse, the naskh, is said to have replaced the abrogated verse, the mansukh. Yet in this case even the naskh has become mansukh! One must surely look for a more reasonable explanation. It appears that, during his lifetime, Muhammad did indeed proclaim that certain passages were abrogated by others, but from the examples we have studied, it appears that sometimes the original verses had quite simply dropped out of the recitation of the Qur'an for whatever reason - they were overlooked, forgotten, replaced, etc. - and after the death of Muhammad it became convenient to explain away the omission of such verses as the result of divine abrogation. In many cases, however, particularly those we have studied, there are evidences that they were omitted for other reasons and no mention of their supposed abrogation appears in the text of the relevant hadith. This chapter has illustrated quite sufficiently that the Qur'an, as it stands today, is somewhat incomplete. Numerous individual verses and, at times, whole passages, are said to have once formed part of the original text and the attempt to evade the implications by suggesting that all such passages must have been abrogated simply because of the fact of their omission from the standardised text cannot overcome the key problem facing those Muslims who claim that the Qur'an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter, nothing added, omitted or varied, indicating a divine oversight of its transmission. The text as it stands today just cannot sincerely be regarded by the Muslims as an exact replica of the "preserved tablet" in heaven from which it was all said to have been delivered to Muhammad. While nothing can be shown to have been added to the text or interpolated into it, much of what was there in the beginning is quite obviously missing from it now and, in comparison with that supposed heavenly original, it cannot be regarded as perfect and complete. Desai uses the doctrine of abrogation to explain away the omission of certain key texts from the Qur'an and thereby he seeks to maintain the hypothesis that the Qur'an today is exactly as Allah intended it to be. How does he get around the wealth of variant readings found in all the early codices of the Qur'an before Uthman's order that all but one of them should be destroyed? Let us in the next chapter analyse his arguments and investigate the doctrine of the seven different readings of the Qur'an.
|
| | Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 08:22 pm Hey people, PG claims to be an atheists, but he/she gets his information from a christian website that attacks Islam and Muslims. http://www.answering-islam.org/, but Muslims respond these Kufars regarding clarification of Qur'anic Verses and Surahs at http://www.understanding-islam.com/qq.htm
|
| | Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 08:27 pm http://www.understanding-islam.com/qq.htm Were Any of the Qur’anic Verses Removed? Our teacher says that three ayahs in the Qur’an have been removed. What is basic concept of Islam about it? Syed Sharif-ud-din, Pakistan Reply It is very difficult to say for sure whether any verses of the Qur’an were actually removed by the Prophet (pbuh) or not. There are a few narratives, which report that the Prophet (pbuh) removed a few verses of the Qur’an. If these narratives are held to be accurate, it may then be contended that there were indeed a few verses in the Qur’an, which were later on removed by the Prophet (pbuh). There are, however, two important points, which should be kept in mind regarding the removed verses of the Qur’an (if any). Firstly, such verses (if any) were removed under the directive of the Almighty Himself as a part of the final compilation of the Qur’an. The Qur’an clearly tells the Prophet (pbuh) that God shall arrange for the compilation as well as the preservation of the Qur’an and, at that time, He may remove any verses, which, according to His absolute knowledge and wisdom, do not require to be preserved in the Qur’an, for all times to come. Al-Qiyaamah 75: 17 – 18 reads as: It is Our responsibility to compile it and recite it to you. Then, when We have recited it, follow the particular recitation. Al-Aa`laa 87: 6 – 7 reads as: Soon, We shall recite it for you and then you shall not forget [any part thereof], except that which Allah wants [to be forgotten]. Thus, it is possible that God may have removed some verses of the Qur’an, in the final recitation, in which it was finally compiled and recited to avoid any chances of error in its transmission to the subsequent generations. Secondly, if there actually were any such verses, which were removed by God, it would logically follow that the directives entailed in these verses were actually temporary in nature. Thus, with the removal of these verses (if any), the directives entailed in them became redundant. After all, if God had intended the directives entailed in these verses to be permanent, why would He have removed these verses from the Qur’an in the first place. In view of the above explanation, it should be clear that the question whether any verses of the Qur’an were removed or not, is purely of an academic interest only. The fact is that the final compilation of the Qur’an, as we have it with us, is what God intended to deliver to mankind. There has been no addition, alteration or deletion from that final compilation of the Qur’an. Thus, even if there were any verses, which were not made a part of the final compilation, there is absolutely no reason why a Muslim should try to find out what these verses were.
|
| | Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 08:34 pm Abrogation & the Unalterable Word of God A Response to a Criticism on the Qur’an Moiz Amjad In one of his brief articles[1], Mr. Jochen Katz has pointed out an apparent inconsistency in two sets of verses in the Qur’an. On the one hand, Al-An`aam 6: 34, Al-An`aam 6: 115 and Yunus 10: 65 imply that no one can change the words of God, while on the other hand, Al-Baqarah 2: 106 and Al-Nahl 16: 101 clearly imply that God changes His directives and replaces one directive for another. Mr. Katz writes: "The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and 10:65. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices! Let us start with a look at the verses upon which Mr. Katz has based his objection. Al-An`aam 6: 34 reads as: Indeed messengers have been rejected before you as well. However, they persevered in the face of being rejected and in the face of being persecuted until Our help came to them. And, indeed, no one can alter the words of God. You have already heard of some of the accounts of these messengers. Al-An`aam 6: 115 reads as: And the word of your Lord was fulfilled with absolute truth and justice. No one can alter His words. He is Hearing Knowing.. Yunus 10: 64 reads as: For them [who have faith and keep from evil,] shall be the glad tidings [of bliss] in this world as well as the hereafter. There can be no change in the words of God. This, indeed, is the supreme triumph. Al-Baqarah 2: 106 reads as: If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We replace it be a better one or one similar. Did you know that God has power over all things? Al-Nahl 16: 101 reads as: And when We replace a verse for another, And God knows best what He reveals, they say: ‘You [O Prophet,] are an imposter. [This is not true,] but most of them know it not. As should be quite clear from the above verses, Mr. Katz’s objection is based on the understanding that the word ‘Kalimah’ or ‘Kalimaat’ (translated as ‘word’ or ‘words’ respectively) in the former three verses is used for the books and verses revealed by God. This understanding, as I have established in one of my previous responses to Mr. Katz’s criticisms, is not correct[2]. Clarifying the usage of the words ‘Kalimah’ and ‘Kalimaat’ in the Qur’an, I had stated: The Arabic words, normally translated as "word" and "words" in the above verses are 'Kalimah' and 'Kalimaat' (plural form) respectively. The word 'Kalimah' has occurred twenty-eight (28) times (including Al-An`aam 6: 115), either independently or prefixed to another word. While the word 'Kalimaat' has occurred fourteen (14) times in the Qur'an. (including Al-An`aam 6: 34 and Yunus 10: 64) either independently or prefixed to another word. However, of these forty-two (42) occurrences in all, not once have these words been used by the Qur'an to imply the scriptures revealed by God (whether the Torah, the Injeel or the Zaboor). As the words 'word' and 'words' in the English language, the words 'kalimah' and 'kalimaat' in the Arabic language are used in quite a few meanings and implications. For instance, these Arabic words (as well as these English words), besides other meanings, are used to imply: A promise[3]; A decree (judgment or a command) etc[4]; A prediction or an information[5]. A lack of appreciation of the fact that words of a language can have different connotations -- the determination of which depends upon the appreciation of the style of the author as well as the context in which the words have been placed -- can lead one to commit grave mistakes in the understanding and appreciation of literature. I would like the reader to take a close look the following statement: Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word..."[6] (Matthew 19: 11) Ignoring the context of these words, one may be tempted to believe that 'the message of Jesus' (i.e. this word) cannot be accepted by everyone. However, interpreting the statement in the perspective of the context in which it is placed makes it clear that the phrase 'this word' does not imply the 'message of Jesus' in general, but is a reference to one of its particular aspects only -- relating to living a life of celibacy. The verse, with its preceding verse reads as: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word... (Matthew 19: 8 - 11) In the cited context, it is quite clear that the phrase 'this word' refers to the disciples' statement: 'it is better not to marry'. Exactly in the same way, the words of the Qur'an as well as any other piece of literature should be interpreted in the light of the context in which these words have been placed. Ignoring the context in which these words have been placed invariably results in misinterpretation of literature. It should, nevertheless, be kept in mind that misinterpretation of a literature does not evidence a weakness in the literature, but, on the contrary, it is a good evidence of the lack of the acceptable level of ability of interpreting literature in the interpreter. As I had stated earlier, the Arabic words 'Kalimah' and 'Kalimaat' have not been used by the Qur'an to refer to any of the scriptures (Torah or Injeel) revealed by God. It should, nevertheless, be interesting if Mr. Katz can find a verse in the Qur'an about which -- keeping in view the context of the verse -- he can prove that the words under consideration have been used to refer to the scriptures revealed by God. After this explanation, in the referred article, I have explained the three referred verses and have shown that if interpreted in the light of their respective contexts, none of these verses can be taken to refer to the books revealed by God. In the first of the three verses (Al-An`aam 6: 34) ‘the words of God’ refer to the God’s law regarding the rejection of His messengers. In the second verse (Al-An`aam 6: 115) the phrase ‘the word of your Lord’ refers to the unchanging law of God regarding who is allowed to accept His guidance and who is not. Finally, in the third verse (Yunus 10: 64), ‘the words of God’ refer to the unalterable law of God regarding reward of the pious[7]. None of the referred verses, as evidenced by their context, refers to the books or verses revealed by God. They refer to certain moral laws of God, which the Qur’an has declared to be God’s constants. © Copyright October 2000. All Rights Reserved with the Author Home Page Use this "Home Page" link only if you have opened this page by following an external link, Otherwise you may simply Close this Window [1] Mr. Katz’s complete article may be accessed at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qi019.html. [2] Reference is to the article titled: “Do the Errors in the Bible Prove that the Qur’an is not from God?”. The article may be accessed on the Internet at: http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/quran/dteitbpttqinfg.htm. [3] As is the case in: '"My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites.' (Judges 11: 36); 'As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?' (Psalms 18: 30 - 31). According to the 'Expert Commentary', the phrase 'the word of the Lord' in the quoted verse refers to 'God's promise to David', though the reference is general. [4] As is the case in: 'Then Moses gave an order and they sent this word throughout the camp: "No man or woman is to make anything else as an offering for the sanctuary".' (Exodus 36: 6); 'Whoever rebels against your word and does not obey your words, whatever you may command them, will be put to death.' (Joshua 1: 18); 'Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, `Honor your father and mother' and `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, `Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to `honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.' (Matthew 15: 3 - 6) 'For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does. The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.' (Psalms 33: 4 - 5). According to the 'Expert Commentary', the phrase 'the word of the Lord' in the quoted verse refers to: 'God's royal word by which he governs all things'. 'I am laid low in the dust; preserve my life according to your word.' (Psalms 119: 25). According to the 'Expert Commentary', 'word' refers to 'God's laws and promises'. 'for they had rebelled against the words of God and despised the counsel of the Most High.' (Psalms 107: 11) 'All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.' (Pslams119: 160) [5] As is the case in: 'Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the LORD, "What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?"' (Judges 13: 17) 'The Lord announced the word, and great was the company of those who proclaimed it' (Psalms 68: 11). According to the 'Expert Commentary', the phrase 'announced the word', in the quoted verses implies: 'God declared beforehand that he would be victorious over the Canaanite kings'. [6] The given translation is according to the New International Version. The King James Version translates this verse as: ‘All men cannot receive this saying...'. The New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) translates it as: 'Not everyone can accept this teaching...'. The Revised Standard Version translates it as: 'Not all men can receive this saying...'. [7] For details, refer to the article titled “Do the Errors in the Bible Prove that the Qur’an is not from God?”. The article may be accessed on the Internet at: http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/quran/dteitbpttqinfg.htm.
|
| | Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 05:20 am ARo What book did you get that passage from??? Thanks for revealing where PG gets her information. She claims she knows Islam when all she does is borrow from sources hostile to Islam.
|
| | Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 06:58 am Chunks comes from the Internet. I would like to mention something about the said-abrogation. All messengers of Allah came with the same Monotheism Message(Tawhiid) that's what we called Islam (the submission to Allah). in terms of Tawheed or Aqidah, all Messengers and Prophets of Allah are IDENTICAL. From Prophet Adam to Prophet Mohammad, no change in that regard. In terms of Laws there are difference. In Islam we called it Sharia. Allah sent package Law(Code of Conduct) to particular Ummah at particular time. That where the abrogation of Laws comes in. One of the wisdoms behind this could be that nations change. Qur'an mentions that People of Thamud and Ad were physically very big and strong. It could be that of cultural revolution and way of life change. early people were primitive in one area and very advanced in another. Allah know s best. But my point here is that Laws are not independent from the people and people change. We believe that Laws given to Musa(Pbuh) was abrogated by Islamic Shariah(most of it was made easier). Unlike the earlier Messages such as that of Musa, Qur'an is not revealed at one shot. It has been revealed in 23 years period and when last verse was revealed(Alyawma Akmaltu Lakum Diinukum... ~Today, I have completed your religion...),nothing changed, not single word. at this point(when Qur'an completed) more 100,000 people knew all the Qur'an by heart, after that there were no shortage in Hufaad( people who memorize it by heart). Today, in Mogadishu only, you can find more than 10,000 kids who know the Qur'an by heart. In that 23 year period, Qur'an reformed WORST nation to the BEST nation. Before Islam, they were most wild human being. It was very normal to burry you daughter alive. At the end of 23 years that nation graduated with a "first Class Standing" grade in all courses of life; piety, honest, moral, knowledge, leadership, administration, heroism, you name it. Non-Muslim Social Scientist wonder how it's possible for Shepard who does not write or read to reform very primitive and wildish Badawin to the best advanced society within 23 years!! If the wisdom of Allah were not in action it will not have been possible to get that result. The the said-abrogation of few Qur'anic verses happened in that crucial process of intensive social training. And they are left there for the trainers to make use of it. If you want understand the Qur'an see the life around you and you will understand the wisdom. The most mentioned abrogated Qur'anic verses are the one dealing with alcohol. Only alcohol addicts who went that 3 step rehab program can appreciate the wisdom behind these verses. No Allah Does change his mind, that is blasphemy. Allah know His creators and deals accordingly. Allah knows best
|
| | Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 07:55 am PG The Laws of Islam does not all come ONLY from the Qur'an. Lot of them come from the authentic sunnah(the tradition of the Prophet; saying, action and agreeing). Some Laws are put in sunnah and some clearly documented in the Qur'an. Do you want to know why?. Some one who has some knowledge in these area can list many possible reasons. Even yourself, if you just invert the cone-shaped thinking of yours and broaden your scope of thinking. You could say that since Qur'an is the only memorized book by millions of ordinary people, Allah wanted to make it relative easy for the people to memorize. Imagine if every Law would be documented in the Qur'an. It will be very difficult to memorize it and that this may lead to corruption along the way. If that verse is textually abrogated but documented it's law in the hadith, you think that might be the reason? Hey, that is only one possible reason that someone who has no good knowledge in Islam(like you) can give. But it's possible that it's for another reason that beyond your little twisted logic.
|
| | Saturday, April 14, 2001 - 02:49 am " And you make your livelyhood, that you blaspheme (this revelation) PG Life on earth is very short, and this will be your best times, why not spend it having more fun doing something else? Because, your calculations are wrong, and when you find that out, there will be no more fun for you. You'd wish you were sheep!
|