Rebuttal to Andrew Vargo's Article "Was 'Uzayr (Ezra) Called The Son Of God?"

By

Bassam Zawadi

Andrew Vargo's article could be located here. His article was in response to Islamic Awareness's article here. It's best for the readers to read both of these articles before they proceed to read this one.

Vargo said:

It should be noted that Ibn Hazm lived during the late 9th and early 10th centuries in Cordoba, Spain. Therefore, his statements are pure conjecture, and are nothing more than an attempt to explain away this error in the Qur'an.

Vargo disputes Ibn Hazm's argument because he lived a long time after the event. However, who said that Ibn Hazm is the one we rely upon? We have the following narration that goes all the way back to Al-Tufayl bin Sakhbara a companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who narrates a dream he once saw:

أتيت على نفر من اليهود , فقلت : من أنتم ؟ فقالوا : نحن اليهود , قلت : إنكم لأنتم القوم لولا أنتم تقولون : عزير ابن الله . قالوا : وأنت لأنتم القوم لولا أنكم تقولون : ما شاء الله وشاء محمد . قال : ثم مررت بنفر من النصارى , فقلت : من أنتم ؟ قالوا : نحن النصارى . قلت : إنكم لأنتم القوم لولا أنكم تقولون : المسيح ابن الله . قالوا : وإنكم لأنتم القوم لولا أنكم تقولون : ما شاء الله وشاء محمد . فلما أصبحت أخبرت بها من أخبرت , ثم أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبرته , فقال : هل أخبرت بها أحدا ؟ فقلت : نعم . فقام , فحمد الله وأثنى عليه ثم قال : أما بعد , فإن طفيلا رأى رؤيا أخبر بها من أخبر منكم , وإنكم قلتم كلمة كان يمنعني كذا وكذا أن أنهاكم عنها , فلا تقولوا : ما شاء الله وشاء محمد , ولكن قولوا : ما شاء الله وحده

I came to a group of Jews and I said to them: "Who are you?" They said: "We are the Jews." I said: "You would have been a great people if it wasn't for your saying that Uzayr is the Son of Allah". They replied: "And you would have been a great people if it wasn't for your saying 'If Allah wills and Muhammad wills'". Then I passed by a group of Christians and said to them: "Who are you?" They replied: "We are the Christians." I then replied: "You would have been a great people if it wasn't for your saying that Christ is the Son of Allah." They replied: "And you would have been a great people if it wasn't for your saying 'If Allah wills and Muhammad wills'". So when I woke up, I told people about it and then I approached the Prophet (peace be upon him) about it. He said: "Did you tell anyone about this?" I said: "Yes." He began to praise Allah and then he said: "Tufayl saw a vision and told you about it and you used to utter a word and I was hesitant to forbid you from saying it. Do not say: 'If Allah wills and Muhammad wills'. Rather say, 'If Allah alone wills'" (This narration has been authenticated by hadith scholar Ahmad Shakir in 'Umdat Al-Tafseer, Volume 1, page 91)

This narration shows that the Muslims at the time understood that there were Jews who were uttering Uzayr's divine son ship. How could such a misunderstanding have taken place from the Muslim side?

Vargo proceeds:

Suppose, as in the case of the Qur'an's error that Mary was a member of the Trinity, there was a heretical sect of Jews who believed that Ezra was the Son of God. An all-knowing God would know that the vast majority of the Jews DO NOT believe this. Why is the majority opinion important in this case?

Notice that the Qur'an says "The Jews", and not "some Jews"! This wording indicates that this verse is talking about the mainstream majority of the Jewish community. Notice also that this passage says "The Christians" (referring to the majority of Christians) call Christ the Son of God in spite of the fact that there were heretical groups in Arabia who denied this belief.

Vargo states that "the Jews" in the verse denotes all Jews.

Imam Al-Qurtubi states:

" وَقَالَتْ الْيَهُود " هَذَا لَفْظ خَرَجَ عَلَى الْعُمُوم وَمَعْنَاهُ الْخُصُوص , لِأَنَّ لَيْسَ كُلّ الْيَهُود قَالُوا ذَلِكَ . وَهَذَا مِثْل قَوْله تَعَالَى : " الَّذِينَ قَالَ لَهُمْ النَّاس " [ آل عِمْرَان : 173 ] وَلَمْ يَقُلْ ذَلِكَ كُلّ النَّاس .

"And the Jews said" this expression is stated in a general sense, yet its meaning is specific because not all Jews said that. This is like Allah's saying "those to whom the people said" (3:173), yet not all people said that. (Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi's, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 9:30,Source)

In Arabic linguistics the method of referring to a specific group of people by using a general name is known as اطلاق اسم الكل على البعض (itlaaq ism al kull 'ala al ba'd) and this is something very common. Al-Qurtubi gave the example of Surah 3:173 where the Qur'an generally states "people", yet it clearly doesn't mean all people.

An example from the Bible would be:

John 14:17

That helper is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him, because it doesn't see or know him. You know him, because he lives with you and will be in you.

Notice that the verse is saying that "the world" cannot accept the Spirit of Truth. The world consists of both Christians and non-Christians. Would Vargo argue that since the verse says "the world" that means that even Christians cannot accept the Spirit of Truth? Well of course not. He would argue back that the meaning of "the world" must be restricted to disbelievers only.

So why would he allow for such a possibility here, but not for the Qur'an?

Vargo states:

It is not really possible for us to know for sure how Muhammad came up with the false conclusion that the Jews believed Ezra to be the Son of God. However, there are a few interesting possibilities.

One possibility is that Muhammad misinterpreted the apocryphal text of 4 Ezra [also know as 2 Esdras], chapter 2:42-48:

I Esdras saw upon the mount Sion a great people, whom I could not number, and they all praised the Lord with songs.

And in the midst of them there was a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and upon every one of their heads he set crowns, and was more exalted; which I marvelled at greatly.

So I asked the angel, and said, Sir, what are these?

He answered and said unto me, These be they that have put off the mortal clothing, and put on the immortal, and have confessed the name of God: now are they crowned, and receive palms.

Then said I unto the angel, What young person is it that crowneth them, and giveth them palms in their hands?

So he answered and said unto me, It is the Son of God, whom they have confessed in the world. Then began I greatly to commend them that stood so stiffly for the name of the Lord.

Then the angel said unto me, Go thy way, and tell my people what manner of things, and how great wonders of the Lord thy God, thou hast seen.

It's unlikely that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would right away assume that since the Jews said "Son of God" then that would mean that it necessitates divine son ship. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was clearly aware of the fact that the Jews could use this phrase in a non-divine way (for example see Surah 5:18).

There is nothing unbelievable about the fact that there existed a small group of Jews living during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Medinah who would have held such a belief. The burden of the proof really is on the Islamic critic's side here. He is the one who needs to provide evidence that shows that the Muslims during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly misunderstood the position that some of the Jews took regarding Ezra or that they completely made it up. Till now, no such evidence has been provided.

Missing Verse On Suckling?

By

Bassam Zawadi

Note: FIRST READ THIS ARTICLE (*)

Here are the hadiths which supposedly speak about the "missing verse" from the Qur'an:

Saheeh Muslim 

Book 008, Number 3421:'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).
Malik's Muwatta
Book 030, Hadith Number 017.
-----------------------------
Section : Suckling in General.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Amongst what was sent down of the Qur'an was 'ten known sucklings make haram' - then it was abrogated by 'five known sucklings'. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what is now recited of the Qur'an." Yahya said that Malik said, "One does not act on this."

Imam Nawawi says in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim...

هو بضم الياء من ( يقرأ ) ومعناه أن النسخ بخمس رضعات تأخر إنزاله جدا حتى أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم توفي وبعض الناس يقرأ خمس رضعات ويجعلها قرآنا متلوا لكونه لم يبلغه النسخ لقرب عهده فلما بلغهم النسخ بعد ذلك رجعوا عن ذلك وأجمعوا على أن هذا لا يتلى                                                                                                                                                                             

There is a dumma on the letter ya'a and it means that the abrogation of the five sucklings came very late until the time that the Prophet (peace be upon him) died and a few people were reciting the five sucklings verse making it part of the Qur'an for they might not have been informed of its abrogation. So when he (Muhammad peace be upon him) did inform them afterwards they stopped reciting it and formed a consensus that this verse should not be recited anymore. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa', Bab: Al Tahreem Bi Khams Ridaa'aat, Commentary on hadith no.2634,Source)

Al Sindi says in his commentary on Sunan Al Nisaa'i... 

فقيل إن الخمس أيضا منسوخة تلاوة إلا أن نسخها كان في قرب وفاته صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم فلم يبلغ بعض الناس فكانوا يقرءونه حين توفي صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم ثم تركوا تلاوته                                                                                                                                          

It is said that the five's (verse on five sucklings) recitation has been abrogated and its abrogation came near the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) so some people weren't informed about it. So they used to recite it but when the Prophet (peace be upon him) died they left its recitation. (Al Sindi, Sharh Sunan Al Nisaa'i, Kitab: Al Nikah, Bab: Al Qadar Allazhi Yuharrim Min Al Ridaa'aa, Commentary on Hadith no. 3255, Source) 

Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi says in his commentary on Sunan Abu Dawud...

والمعنى أن النسخ بخمس رضعات تأخر إنزاله جدا حتى أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم توفي وبعض الناس يقرأ خمس  رضعات ويجعلها قرآنا متلوا لكونه لم يبلغه النسخ لقرب عهده فلما بلغهم النسخ بعد ذلك رجعوا عن ذلك وأجمعوا على أن هذا لا يتلى . والنسخ ثلاثة أنواع : أحدها ما نسخ حكمه وتلاوته كعشر رضعات . والثاني ما نسخت تلاوته  دون حكمه كخمس رضعات                                                                                                                                                                              

And what this means is that the abrogation by five sucklings was revealed very late to the extent that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) died, some people were still reciting the verse of five sucklings and making it part of recited Qur'an for they were not informed about its abrogation but when they wereafter that, they went back on that and formed a consensus on that this verse must not be recited. And abrogation is of three types: One of them is that its ruling and recitation be abrogated just like the ten sucklings verse. And the second is that its recitation has been abrogated without its ruling just like the five sucklings verse... (Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi, Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Nikah, Bab: Hal Yuhharram Ma Doona Khamsa Ridaa'aat, Commentary on hadith no. 1765, Source) 

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid said...

For breastfeeding to have the effect of transmitting its benefits from the nursing woman to the child suckled, it must meet certain conditions, which are:

1. The breastfeeding must happen within the first two years of the child's life, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "The mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling." [al-Baqarah 2:233].
2. The number of breastfeedings must total the known five feeds, in which the child eats his fill as if eating and drinking. If the child leaves the breast for a reason, such as to take a breath or to switch from one breast to the other, this (i.e., each separate time the child latches on) is not counted as one breastfeeding. This is the opinion of al-Shaafa'i, and the opinion favoured by Ibn al-Qayyim. The definition of rad'ah (one breastfeeding) is when the child sucks at the breast and drinks until the milk enters his stomach, then he leaves the breast of his own accord. The evidence for the number five (number of breastfeedings) is the report from 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: "There was in the Qur'aan [an aayah which stipulated that] ten [was the number of] breastfeedings which created the relationship of mahram, then this was abrogated [by another aayah which stipulated] five. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and [the aayah which stipulated five] was still being recited as part of the Qur'aan." (Reported by Muslim, 1452). In other words, the abrogation came so late that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, some people had not yet heard that this aayah had been abrogated, but when they heard that it had been abrogated, they stopped reciting it, and agreed that it should not be recited, although the ruling mentioned in the aayah remained in effect. This is an abrogation of the recitation without abrogation of the ruling, which is one type of abrogation. (Source)

We can clearly see that the evidence shows that the consensus amongst the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was that the verse's recitation was meant to be abrogated and it was also commanded by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to abrogate this verse. However, the command came just a very short while before the Prophet's (peace be upon him) death and therefore not everyone was informed about it and some still thought that it was still a recited part of the Quran. However, once they have been informed that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered its abrogation, then they stopped reciting it. 

---------

Exposing the lie of Quran's lost verse about breastfeeding

نشرت بواسطة: Waqar Akbar Cheema 10:52 AM في Alleged Variants and Lost Verses , answered , Breastfeeding , lie , lost verses , Qur'an Preservation and Compilation , Quran , suckling , Waqar Akbar 1 تعليق واحد

There is a Hadith reported from Sayyidah Aisha (RA) which gives a notion as if some verse about five suckling was revealed and was recited till the death of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) which is obviously not found in any of the Quranic manuscripts known in history. The tradition goes as:

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ

---'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2634) --

This gives the impression that the verses was lost after the Holy Prophet (PBUH), if so, this is against the established Islamic idea that nothing was abrogated from the Quran after the Prophet and it is to-the-letter same as left by him.

Solitary reports do not prove things about Quran:

Many scholars have very strongly rejected this tradition. No doubt its chain of narrators is otherwise fine but when it comes to Quran then there must be mutawatir traditions to prove something to be a part of it. This is not the case regarding the issue in hand. It has only been reported this way so from Sayyidah Aisha (RA) through a single narrator and therefore learned scholars continue to contend the apparent meaning of this tradition.

Imam Nawawi writes in his monumental commentary of Sahih Muslim under this Hadith that scholars reject this tradition saying:

'Quran is not proved from a solitary report (khabr wahid).' (Sharah Al-Nawawi 5/183)

The words that attract our attention the most in this tradition are:

'Allah's Messenger (PBUH) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).'

Now looking at the various versions of this tradition from Sayyidah Aisha we find it is only through a narrator, Abdullah bin Abi Bakr, that these words are narrated i.e. he is unique in relating these particular words. The other versions that are narrated through Qasim bin Muhammad and Yahya bin Saeed do not contain these words and as a matter of fact both of them are more reliable and trustworthy then Abdullah bin Abi Bakr as stated by Imam Tahawi in Mushkil al-Athaar 10/171.

It is narrator's own assumption, not a fact:

Infact scholars have said this is merely an assumption on the part of the narrator Abdullah bin Abi Bakr. Imam Tahawi says;

وهذا ممن لا نعلم أحدا رواه كما ذكرنا غير عبد الله بن أبي بكر وهو عندنا وهم منه

'This is something we do not know from any other narrator except Abdullah bin Abi Bakr and to us it is merely an assumption on his part.' (Mushkil al-Athaar 5/73 under Hadith 1740)

Similarly Shaykh Ibn Arabi also calls it merely an assumption on the narrator's part in his 'Aardha al- Ahwazi 5/92.

Even five suckling's command was abrogated:

Infact there are solid evidences that recitation and even the injunction about five breastfeeds was also abrogated in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

In Musannaf Abdul Razzaq it is related that Sayyidah Aisha (RA) said:

لقد كان في كتاب الله عزوجل عشر رضعات ، ثم رد ذلك إلى خمس ، ولكن من كتاب الله ما قبض مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

'Indeed ten breastfeeds were mentioned in the Quran (as making marriage unlawful through foster relation), then it was changed by five and there was nothing but it was abrogated in the presence of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).' (Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 13928)

Shaykh Taqi Usmani says: 'This tradition of Sayyidah Aisha is points that recitation of the five breastfeeds verse was abrogated before the death of the Prophet (PBUH).' (Takmala Fath al- Mulhim 1/46)

This is true because Sayyidah Aisha lived long after the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and was there when Sayyidina Abu Bakr (RA), her father, got the first official copy of the Quran prepared and even at the time of Sayyidina Usman (RA) made multiple copies of the same. And we know Sayyidah Aisha (RA) held a very high position among the companions in matters of knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah. Also we know that some of the well known recitations (qir'aats) of the Holy Quran are traced back to Sayyidah Aisha (RA) and none of them contain any such words thus the opinion of the scholars that these particular words are only an assumption on part of the narrator is further supported by this.

Even a single suckle proves foster relation:

Infact there was a gradual change in the command regarding this issue. Firstly it was said that ten breastfeeds make marriage unlawful through foster relationship. Then it was abrogated by five and at last it was said that even a single suckle within infancy proves foster relationship.

عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّهُ سُئِلَ عَنْ الرَّضَاعِ فَقُلْت : إنَّ النَّاسَ يَقُولُونَ لَا تُحَرِّمُ الرَّضْعَةُ وَلَا الرَّضْعَتَانِ قَالَ : قَدْ كَانَ ذَاكَ ، فَأَمَّا الْيَوْمَ فَالرَّضْعَةُ الْوَاحِدَةُ تُحَرِّمُ

Narrated Tawus from Ibn Abbas that he was asked about breastfeeding, so I said: People say that one or two suckling do not make (marriage) unlawful (through foster relations). He said: 'It was like that but now even one makes unlawful.' (Ahkaam al-Quran by Jassas 4/224)

Also it is related in Musannaf Abdul Razzaq:

Tawus (d. 106 A.H. and was a pupil of many companions including Sayyidah Aisha) said that:

كان لازواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم رضعات معلومات ، قال : ثم ترك ذلك بعد ، فكان قليله وكثيره يحرم

'Wives of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) held that a specific number of breastfeeds prove the foster relation.' He further said: 'Then this (opinion) was later left thus now little or more suckling makes marriage unlawful.' (Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 13914)

Why changes in the command?

The wisdom behind this gradual change in the commandment was that in Arabia back then fostering other's children was a normal practice and as it had implication on possible future marriages so the command was gradually made strict not to cause much consternation in the society.

Conclusion:

All this clarifies that the tradition, if critically examined, does not cast any doubt whatsoever on the Quran and its authenticity. Infact the recitation and the command regarding five breastfeeds was abrogated. One must either follow our rules of considering different narrations or muster up the courage to challenge their rationale.

(As the real intention was not to discuss the issue of jurisprudence that how many breastfeeds prove the foster relation, the details and further arguments can be seen in Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.1, commentary on Sahih Muslim by Shaykh Taqi Usmani)

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

The Quranic Verse On Stoning

By

Bassam Zawadi

Note: FIRST READ THIS ARTICLE (*)

Some of the hadith that talk about the verse on stoning...

Saheeh Bukhari 

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."

Saheeh Muslim
Book 017, Number 4194:'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

Christian missionaries tend to argue that this verse was removed from the Quran and they claim that this is proof that Muslims corrupted the Quran. Let's see if this argument holds any water. 

The alleged verse is...

الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة                                                                                                                

The old man and the old lady if they committed adultery then stone them 

Another opinion is that it is...

الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم                                                                                

The old man and the old lady if they committed adultery then stone them as a punishment from Allah and Allah is the Most Mighty, Most Wise 

Imam ibn Hajar Al Asqalani says in his commentary on Saheeh Bukhari...

فقال عمر : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك , فقال عمر : ألا ترى أن الشيخ إذا زنى ولم يحصن جلد , وأن الشاب إذا زنى وقد أحصن رجم                                                                                                               

Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down?' It is as if he hated that" Then Umar said: "Cant you see that if the old man if he commits adultery he does not get the whip, and that if the young man if he commits adultery he gets stoned?" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al I'tiraaf bil Zina,Commentary on Hadith no. 6327, Source)

Here we clearly see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not want the verse to be written down because it was never meant to be part of the text of the Quran. The scholars of Islam are unanimous that the recitation of this verse has been abrogated but its ruling still remains in effect. 

However, the only reason why Umar got emotional and wanted to put the verse in the Quran was because he was afraid that one day people would think that its ruling had been cancelled. However, the companions did not allow him to because they all knew that its recitation had been abrogated. In order to put a verse in the Quran there needed to be two witnesses and Umar was all by himself. Umar himself knew that its recitation was abrogated but he was getting emotional, for he feared that people in the future would not believe in the ruling of stoning the adulterers. 

Imam ibn Hajar Al Asqalani has in his commentary...

أي في الآية المذكورة التي نسخت تلاوتها وبقي حكمها , وقد وقع ما خشيه عمر أيضا فأنكر الرجم طائفة من  الخوارج أو معظمهم وبعض المعتزلة                                                                                                                        

In the verse whose recitation has been abrogated but its ruling remained, and it has happened what Umar feared. A tribe from the Khawarij or most of them and some of the Mu'tazilites rejected the stoning.

وقد أخرج عبد الرزاق والطبري من وجه آخر عن ابن عباس أن عمر قال " سيجيء قوم يكذبون بالرجم "                                   

And it was reported by Abd al Razzaq and Al Tabari from another view that Ibn Abbas said that Umar said "There will come a people that will lie (or disbelieve) in the stoning" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani,Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Hublah min Zana Eezha Ahsanat, Commentary on Hadith no. 6328, Source)  

Imam Nawawi says in his commentary in Saheeh Muslim...

وهذا مما نسخ لفظه وبقي حكمه                                                                                                                             

And this is whose recitation has been abrogated and its ruling remained. 

 وفي ترك الصحابة كتابة هذه الآية دلالة ظاهرة أن المنسوخ لا يكتب في المصحف , وفي إعلان عمر بالرجم وهو على المنبر  وسكوت الصحابة وغيرهم من الحاضرين عن مخالفته بالإنكار دليل على ثبوت الرجم                                                            

And the companions of the Prophet abandoning the writing of this verse is clear evidence that the abrogated should not be written in the Quran and that Umar's statement about the stoning as he is on the pulpit and the silence of the companions and other than them from who were present from opposing him is evidence about the ruling of the stoning (still being implemented) (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Thayb fil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 3201,Source)

Al Sindi says in his commentary on Sunan Ibn Majah...

أي آية الرجم وهذه الآية مما نسخ لفظها وبقي حكمها                                                                                                  

The verse of stoning: Its recitation has been abrogated and its ruling still remains in effect. (Al Sindi,Sharh Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 2543,Source)

Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi says in his commentary on Sunan Abu Dawud...

وهذا مما نسخ لفظه وبقي حكمه                                                                                                                          

And this is whose recitation has been abrogated but ruling remains in effect. (Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi, Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Fil Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 3835, Source)

Conclusion

We can clearly see that there was a consensus amongst the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the scholars that the recitation of the verse on stoning was abrogated and that they did not corrupt it. How can all the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who sacrificed everything they had for this religion just happen to decide to come together and purposely corrupt the Quran by removing this verse? What motive would they have in doing so if its law was to remain being implemented? So there can't be a motive to remove this verse simply because they wished to not follow its ruling since the ruling still remains in effect up to this day.

So clearly the evidence shows that this recitation was always meant to be abrogated while its ruling remains in effect.

Torah scrolls burnt

The reason why there is no existing manuscripts from the time of Moses is, all the Torah scrolls were burnt.

Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. (2 kings 22:8)

Rashi Commentary

I have found the Torah Scroll. It was hidden under a layer of stones where they had concealed it when Achaz burned the Torah.¹  According to II Divrei Hayomim 34:14, this was the original Torah Scroll written by Moshe. God had commanded Moshe to write this Scroll at the end of his life. See Devarim 31:24-26.

Ahaz nullified the Templeservice and sealed the Torah, prohibiting its study, as it is stated: “Bind up the testimony, seal the Torah among my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Manasseh excised the mentions of God’s names from sacred books and destroyed the altar. Amon burned the Torah and sacrificed a gecko, an impure creeping animal, upon the altar. ( Talmud Sanhedrin Daf 103b)

There were five events that happened to our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av. On the seventeenth of Tammuz: The tablets were shattered; The tamid ( offering was cancelled; The [walls] of the city were breached; And Apostomos burned the Torah, and placed an idol in the Temple. ( MISHNAH Mishnah Danes Chapter 4)

The Gemara further asks: Anddoes anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits have goodness bestowed upon him in this world? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: Anyone whose merits are greater than his sins is punished with suffering in order to cleanse his sins in this world and enable him to merit full reward for his mitzvot in the World-to-Come. And due to this punishment he appears to observers like one who burned the entire Torah without leaving even one letter remaining of it. (that would be Apostomos) (Talmud Kiddushin Daf 39b:5)

On the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets‏ ‏were broken [by Moshe Rabbeinu upon‏ ‏seeing the golden calf], the Tamid [twice-daily] offering ‎ceased, the city‏ ‏‎[Jerusalem] was breached, Apostomus‎‏ ‏burned the Torah and an idol was‏ ‏erected ‎in the sanctuary. ( HALAKHAH There Orach Chaim, Siman 549:1)

On the ninth of that month the Temple was burned and the Torah with it. (Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 33:38:1)

And the city of Jerusalem was breached at the [time of] the destruction of the second Temple. And Apostimos burned the Torah and set up an image in the [Temple] chamber. (Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 549:3)

Therefore the Sages relate that when the Torah scroll was burned by the Romans together with Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon, the letters flew off and only the parchment was burned (Avodah Zarah 18a). Similarly, in the pogroms of Poland thousands of Torah scrolls were burned (MUSAR Kav HaYashar Chapter 102)

Interestingly, the rabbis admit the scrolls of the Torah were burnt by the Romans. MUSAR Kav HaYashar Chapter 102 to save the embarrassment tries to cover the story by saying the letter flew off? Sorry sir such story wont work with us.

If you don’t believe the Torah which Moses wrote was not burnt, then where is it now? In fact, you don’t have to go as far as showing us the Torah scrolls which Moses wrote on, just show us the Septuagint manuscripts copied by the Hebrew (note the original Septuagint manuscripts not copies of copies). Again, Christians will fail to show us the original scrolls written by Moses or any of the original Septuagint manuscripts.  

Now lets get back to the verse which says

Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. (2 kings 22:8)

Notice how the high priest said he found the “Book of the Law” in the temple? Now why would that be such a big fuss if they had multiple copies of the Torah with them? unless they didn’t have the Torah with them, then it’s a matter of urgency to declare such a discovery. Thus, the Torah was already gone burnt and somehow this one survived withing the pillars of the temple and rediscovered later to be lost again.