بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين
by Waqar Akbar and Gabriel Keresztes
1. Introduction
Lying about Islam and its fundamentals has become a standard
for zealous missionaries such as Sam Shamoun and David Wood. Most of their blunders and misrepresentations
have been exposed over the past decade, which leaves one to wonder why they are
still using the same techniques and approaches.
Their academic credentials are without a doubt shady, while their
reputation of deception and lies has been following them wherever they go. Taking much of their inspiration from
orientalists of the pasts, some sincere (but mistaken) while others with
destructive agendas, missionaries have lacked the desire and sincerity to look
at Islam from a neutral point of view.
In their thirst for hatred (not giving the other cheek) towards Islam
they launched many nonintellectual attacks on the holy book of Islam, the
Qur'an. In doing so they have scavenged
for any kind of vague statements or information (keeping in mind that most of
the time they have dealt with translations) to cast doubt on the reliability
and integrity of the Qur’an. Not being
able to cope with the fact that the so called Gospels are human forgeries attributed
to God, they have turned to the Qur’an in order to escape the
embarrassment. However as we will show
beyond the shadow of a doubt Allah has preserved the Qur’an as promised:
“Verily, We have revealed the Reminder (the Quran) and We
will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (Quran 15:9)
A narration from 'Abdullah ibn ‘Umar quoted by Hafiz Al-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) in his Al-Itqan fi Uloom al-Qur’an has excited many orientalists, missionaries and some other lunatics.
As Sam Shamoun puts it, the
translation goes as;
`Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR'AN HAS GONE. Let him say instead, "I have got what has survived."' (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25)
Not only are the meanings that Sam
and other people of his club try to superimpose on this narration are totally
wrong, this translation is also misleading. We shall first clarify the real meanings of
this narration and then give its rightful translation supported with due
reasoning.
2- The true meanings of the
narration
To every ardent student of the
Qur’anic sciences it is known that there were many verses first revealed as
part of the Qur’an and later abrogated. We have discussed the essence of the idea of
abrogation earlier.
Al-Suyuti brings this narration in
the section of his work is titled as; “Section forty-seven: About the
Abrogating and the Abrogated.”[1]
Likewise it is in the section
about abrogation in another work of al-Suyuti.[2]
In Abu ‘Ubayd’s (d. 228 A.H.) work,
from which al-Suyuti quotes this, it is the first narration in the chapter
titled; “[About] what all was abrogated from the Qur’an after revelation
and is not put in the Masahif.”[3]
Most important is the narration
quoted by Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) which compliments and fixes the meaning
of the report we are discussing. Ibn Hajr writes;
وقد أخرج بن الضريس من حديث بن عمر أنه
كان يكره أن يقول الرجل قرأت القرآن كله ويقول إن منه قرآنا قد رفع
Ibn al-Dhurays has narrated a
report of Ibn Umar that he used to dislike the person who said, ‘I have recited
the whole of the Qur’an.’ He (Ibn Umar) used to say, ‘But (the reality is) a
part of the Qur’an has been abrogated.’[4]
This report seals the fact that
Ibn Umar’s statement simply refers to what was abrogated from the Qur’an.
.
Abu Bakr ibn Tayyib Al-Baqilani (d. 403 A.H.) in his amazing work al-Intisar li’l-Qur’an (In Defence of the Qur’an), quotes another narration on the similar lines and then explains the two together. He writes;
Abu Bakr ibn Tayyib Al-Baqilani (d. 403 A.H.) in his amazing work al-Intisar li’l-Qur’an (In Defence of the Qur’an), quotes another narration on the similar lines and then explains the two together. He writes;
ونحوُ
روايةِ عبدُ الله بنُ عباسِ عن أبي أنه سمعه وقد قال له رجل: "يا أبا المنذر إني
قد جمعت القرآن، فقال له: ما يدريكَ لعله قد سقطَ قرآن كثير فما وُجد بعد".
And similar is the report of
Abdullah bin ‘Abbas from Ubay, that he heard a man said to him; ‘O Abu
al-Munzar verily I have gathered (i.e. memorized) the whole of the Qur’an.’ He
(Ubay) said to him, ‘He does not know (what the whole of it was) because so
much of the Qur’an was abrogated and it was not found afterwards.’[5]
And then explaining it he writes;
“And it is not possible for
anyone to claim that he has learnt (all) what was revealed as Qur’an- the
abrogating part of it and the abrogated. And their words ‘it was not found
afterwards’ (underscore) that we do not find in our day one who has memorized
all that was abrogated and whose recitation was given up. And this is something
which was bound to happen.” [6]
3. Nothing has been lost of
what the Prophet left of the Qur’an
Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Rufai':
Shaddad bin Ma'qil and I entered upon Ibn 'Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma'qil asked him,
"Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?" He replied.
"He did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings (of the
Qur'an)." Then we visited Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him (the
same question). He replied, "The Prophet did not leave except what is
between the bindings (of the Qur'an)."[7]
This hadith is categorical
evidence that nothing was lost of the Qur’an because all that the Holy Prophet-
peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- left for his people is what was put
between the two bindings.
Hafiz Ibn Hajr writes;
“And this chapter is
made to refute those who assume that a lot from the Qur’an was lost with the
death of those who knew it.”[8]
Al-‘Ayni (d. 855 A.H.) also makes
exactly the same point.[9]
Shahabuddin al-Alusi’s (d. 1270
A.H.) comment helps understand the entire issue;
“Verily they (i.e. people of
sunnah) have agreed on there being no loss in the Qur’an as is continuously
reported like we today find between the two bindings. Yes during the time of
(Abu Bakr) al-Sidiq the part which was not reported continuously and was
(rather) abrogated was dropped (out of the official Mushaf) … and to this
relates that which is reported by Abu ‘Ubayd from Ibn `Umar, who said: ‘None of
you should say that he has taken the whole of the Qur’an; how could he know
what all of it was! A lot of the Qur’an has passed him by! Let him say instead:
‘I have taken of the Qur’an that which became apparent.”[10]
The above mentioned narration of
Sahih Bukhari is very significant. One of the two who said “The Prophet left
nothing except what is between the two bindings” was Ibn Abbas and in the
narration quoted by Al-Baqilani we find him reporting and listening to the
comment of his teacher Ubayy bin Ka’b which is same as that of Ibn Umar.
Connecting the dots we make out that he understood Ubay did not mean to say that
some part of the Qur’an that the Prophet had left for the Ummah might have been
missed and could not be found anymore by the person claiming to have memorized
the whole of it. It rather shows that Ibn Abbas fully knew that what Ubay
referred to was something exclusive to what the Prophet had left for the Ummah
as eternal guidance (i.e. it was the abrogated part). And we have already seen that
the narration of Ibn ‘Umar quoted by Ibn Hajr on the authority of Ibn al-Dhurays
makes the same point very plainly.
Another significant observation
about Bukhari’s narration is that the two who testified for the Qur’anic
preservation are Ibn ‘Abbas, the cousin of ‘Ali bin Talib, and Muhammad bin
Al-Hanafiyya, the son of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib- may Allah be pleased with them
all. Their testimony is quite sufficient to lay to rest any amount of rant by
some extreme Shiites who make speculative allegations of Qur’an being tampered
to remove verses in favor of ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. Had this been
the case these two close relatives of ‘Ali would have not failed to make a
mention of it.
4- Two objections/queries
answered
Having explained the narration
let us now turn to two possible questions/queries.
4.1 Why Ibn Umar referred the
abrogated verses as Qur’an?
Before finding the answer to this
question let us have another look at the narration of Ibn al-Dhurays;
“Ibn Umar used to dislike the
person who said, ‘I have recited the whole of the Qur’an.’ He (Ibn Umar) used
to say, ‘But (the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has been abrogated.”
Very much like our explanation to
the narration we are discussing, this report shows that Ibn ‘Umar referred to
the abrogated verses as Qur’an. With the clarity in its last words this
narration takes away all the rhetoric power of the question and reduces it to a
mere query having no ability whatsoever to cast doubts on the validity of the
explanation offered.
Coming back; Dr. Sa’d bin
‘Abdullah al-Humayyid commenting to this narration in his research on Sunan Sa’id
bin Mansur says;
“And it appears from the words
of Ibn ‘Umar that in his opinion even the abrogated verses could also be called
Qur’an after their being abrogated or (they could be so called) by the way what
they once were.”[11]
This is understandable given the
fact that Qur’an is nothing but the word of Allah and abrogated verses though
no more required to be learnt or followed were nevertheless revered due to
their divine origin. In this regard
there is, however, one important difference between Ibn ‘Umar and the people of
later generation like us. As there is no authority of continuous (mutawatir)
reports, we cannot be as certain as him about some abrogated-in-recitation
words’ once being a part of the Qur’an. We may however refer to them as such
for academic purposes on the basis of lesser proofs. But for Ibn ‘Umar this was
not the condition as he must have listened to some verses from the Prophet in
person for which he later learnt that they were abrogated. Therefore, he for
himself was too particular about the words that emanated from the Almighty as
part of the Qur’an though abrogated afterwards.
Further, it also has an
indication of an attitude of extreme care on such matters that involves
goodness on one part because this can in a way lead to self-glorification. One
might see it akin to the following hadith;
Narrated Abu Bakrah: The Prophet
(may peace be upon him) said: “One of you should not say: I fasted the whole
of Ramadan, and I prayed during the night in the whole of Ramadan. I do not
know whether he disliked the self-praise; or he (the narrator) said: ‘He must
have slept a little and taken rest’.”[12]
We can see that even though it is
natural that one who would fast as such for the whole month of Ramadan,
will break the fasts at night and will also sleep besides standing in
late-night prayers, yet an out of the way step is taken in instructing not to
make such a claim. The fact that narration of Ibn ‘Umar is in essence similar
to this and involves the idea of claim as well; it can help us appreciate the
real message in the words of Ibn ‘Umar- may Allah be pleased with him.
4.2 Was “much” of the Qur’an abrogated?
We know the actual text involves
the words “qur’an kathir” therefore one may tend to translate it as
“much of the Qur’an” with stress on “much.” In fact Sam Shamoun does that and asks
“what kind of revelation is this that MUCH (not some) of it consists of
verses that have been abrogated?” This may appear to be a very strong
point but actually speaks of the lack of proper understanding of the language, something that Sam has been guilty of in all his papers.
The Arabic word “kathir” does not mean “much” in the comparative sense. In the comparative sense it can even be used to mean less than what it is compared to as shown below. Same is the case with abrogation that we are discussing. The abrogated part of the Qur'an was definitely less than what remains.
A simple proof for this assertion
is the narration in which Sa’d bin Waqqas asked the Prophet- may the peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him- about the share of his wealth that he might
give away in charity while he feared to die. Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas himself
narrated his dialogue with the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- on the subject;
قُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، أُوصِي
بِمَالِي كُلِّهِ؟ قَالَ: «لاَ» ، قُلْتُ: فَالشَّطْرُ، قَالَ: «لاَ» ، قُلْتُ: الثُّلُثُ،
قَالَ: فَالثُّلُثُ، وَالثُّلُثُ كَثِيرٌ
“I said; ‘Should I give
two-thirds of my property in charity?' He said, 'No.' I asked, 'Half?' He said,
'No.' then he added, 'One-third, and even one-third is much (wal-thuluthu
kathir).”[13]
The translator of Sahih Muslim
puts the same as;
“He (the Holy Prophet) said:
(Yes), one-third, and one-third is quite substantial (wal-thuluthu kathir).”[14]
Certainly one-third is not “much”
in the comparative sense of being more than the rest and no person of reason
can ever claim that. Just like two thousand years of theological hammering has
failed to find logic for “one in three and three in one,” likewise no amount of
effort can ever show that “one-third” is “much” in the comparative sense.
Ibn ‘Umar- may Allah be pleased with him- only aimed to highlight the fact that verses of the Qur'an were abrogated and no one should say that they have memorized the whole of the Qur'an (including those verses) as it rests in the guarded tables with Allah. The Qur'an that we have between the two covers today, the Qur'an given to us by the messenger of God, collected by Abu Bakr and Uthman, is the Qur'an that Allah revealed and decreed to remain as the guiding message for humanity till the Day of Judgment, without any addition, subtraction or alteration.
5- Summary and Conclusion
Ibn Umar- may Allah be pleased
with him- only referred to the abrogated part of the Qur’an and his comment in
no way suggests of even a single letter of the Qur’an being lost.
Ibn ‘Umar’s other narration quoted
by Ibn Hajr on the authority of Ibn al-Dhurays plainly establishes this
meaning.
Abu ‘Ubayd and Al-Suyuti have
both placed the narration in the sections about abrogated verses which shows
they also understood it likewise. Comments of Al-Baqilani and Al-Alusi also support
the same.
The word “kathir” does not mean
“much” in the comparative sense.
The rightful translation of the
meanings of this narration is;
عن
ابن عمر، قال: لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله وما يدريه ما كله؟ قد ذهب منه قرآن
كثير، ولكن ليقل: قد أخذت منه ما ظهر منه
Ibn `Umar, who said: ‘None of
you should say that he has taken the whole of the Qur’an; how could he know
what all of it was (before some of it being abrogated)! Substantial part of the
Qur’an has passed him by (due to abrogation)! Let him say instead: ‘I have
taken of the Qur’an that which (remained and) became apparent (after
abrogation).”
Indeed Allah knows the best!
[1] Al-Itiqan
fil Uloom al-Quran, Haeya al-Masriya al-‘Aamah lil-Kitab, Egypt 1974 vol.3
p.66, 82-83
[2] Mu'tarik al-Aqran fi Aijaz al-Qur’an, Dar al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1988 vol.1 p.95
[3] Fada’il
al-Qur’an, Dar Ibn Kathir, Damascus, 1995 vol.1 p.320
[4]
Fath al-Bari, Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut 1379 A.H. vol.9 p.65
[5]
Al-Intisar lil-Qur’an, Dar al-Fath/Dar Ibn Hazm, Amman/Beirut, 2001 p.406
[6]
Al-Intisar, p.408
[7]
Sahih Bukhari, Book 61, Hadith 537
[8] Fath
al-Bari, vol.9 p.65
[9]
‘Umdah al-Qari, Dar al-Ahya al-Turath al-‘Arabi, Beirut n.d. vol.20 p.36
[10]
Tafsir Ruh al-M’ani , Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1415 A.H. vol.1 p.26
[11] Sunan
Sa’id bin Mansur, Dar al-Sami'i, Beirut, 1993 vol.2 p.433 n.2
[12]
Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2409
[13]
Sahih Bukhari, Book 23, Hadith 383
[14]
Sahih Muslim, Book 13, Hadith 3997
Masahallah brother !! this article is nail in the coffin of lying missionaries.
ReplyDeleteBrother Waqar's articles are like Saladin , they not only defeat the missionaries but also kick out these lying pagans and send them back to where they came from just as Saladin did to the crusaders.
Allah bless brother Waqar and all those behind this site and help them accomplish all that they want in this life.
Brother i want you to clarify these points of mine.
1) Why this athar comes only from Ibn Umer and nobody else who were bigger authority on Quran than him ?
2) Why such a thing is not said by Zaid ibn Tabhit , Ibn masood , Ubay Ibn Kab and other companions of Prophet who were the pioneers in the compilation of Quran ?
3) Is this report reliable ?
Thanks .
Jazak'ALlah brother. Remember us in prayers for Allah's help and guidance. Your repeated word about it made us to work on it. May Allah reward you as well
DeleteAs to your questions
1- It does not matter I believe. It only shows who among the companions chose to be too particular about the issue. Not a big deal really!
2- Same as 1) plus mark the report about Ubay (ra) mentioned by al-Baqilani that I reproduced
3- Yes its isnaad is sahih.
And Allah knows the best!
May I add a little bit?
DeleteIbn Mas'ud (r.a) is considered as perhaps the greatest scholar followed by Ibn Abbas (r.a) whereas Ibn Umar (r.a) is not far behind. Therefore coming from him doesn't make much difference than coming from someone else. None of them claim the abrogated verses should be a part of the Qur'an but he particularly insists on people not to claim to have the whole Qur'an. I am sure others would agree with his word but as brother Waqar said, they did not choose to be too particular about the issue.
You have nailed it brother.
ReplyDeleteBrother, I love you for the sake of Allah...
ReplyDeleteIs it ok if i ask a question? i am a Muslim in Europe by the way....doing exams soon.....pray 4 me
ReplyDelete1) is that the actual translation of the text you presented last or your translation?
this question is for Waqar or Adeel....
i appreciate both of your efforts may Allah bless you for this amazing website....
Assalamo alaikum
DeleteMay Allah make things easy for you
Translation given at the end is our translation and in the light of foregoing evidence it is the more accurate and the 'actual' one. :)
Keep visiting our new site: www.icraa.org