Sunday 1 December 2019

Textual corruption of Surat al-‘Asr?


In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful
Muslims might be surprised to find that there are different versions of Surat al-‘Asr reported from some of the companions. Anti-Muslim writers cite these narrations as evidence of alleged ‘textual corruption’ in the Quran, but they do not understand the context of these variants or how scholars understood them.
Al-Tabari narrated that Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, recited Surat al-‘Asr with this text:
وَالْعَصْرِ وَنَوَائِبِ الدَّهْرِ إن الإنْسانَ لفي خُسْرٍ وإنه فيه إلى آخر الدهر
By the time and calamities of age! Verily, humanity is in loss and will be so until the end of the age.
Source: Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 103:1
Muslims will notice immediately that this is different from the widely-known standard text we often recite in prayer. Could this mean the original text has been changed or suppressed?
As we know, Allah has promised to protect the textual integrity of the Quran for as long as he wills.
Allah said:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Verily, We have revealed the remembrance and We will guard over it.
Surat al-Hijr 15:9
In reality, this is not an alternative version of the Quran being narrated by Ali. Rather, it includes his own personal comments as an explanation of the Quranic text, which some narrators may have confused with the actual Quran later on.
It is was not uncommon for senior companions of the Prophet (ṣ) to include the interpretations they understood in their copies of the Quran.
Al-Baqillani writes:
وكان منهم يعني الصحابة من يقرأ التأويل مع التنزيل
Among the companions are those who recited the interpretation alongside the revelation.
Source: al-Intiṣār lil-Qur’ān 1/351
The companions were able to do this because they were the most well-versed and knowledgeable of the Quran. They could easily distinguish the proper text from any of their notes or comments.
Ibn al-Jazari writes:
كَانُوا رُبَّمَا يُدْخِلُونَ التَّفْسِيرَ فِي الْقِرَاءَةِ إِيضَاحًا وَبَيَانًا لِأَنَّهُمْ مُحَقِّقُونَ لِمَا تَلَقَّوْهُ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قُرْآنًا فَهُمْ آمِنُونَ مِنَ الِالْتِبَاسِ وَرُبَّمَا كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ يَكْتُبُهُ مَعَهُ
It is possible they included explanations in their recitations, to clarify and elucidate, as they had verified what they received from the Prophet (ṣ) of the Quran. They were not in danger of confusing the text. It is also possible that some of them would write the explanation alongside the text.
Source: al-Nashr fī al-Qirā’āt al-‘Ashr 1/32
Hence, this is how the variants of Surat al-‘Asr reported by Al-Tabari and others should be understood. Makki ibn Abi Talib commented specifically on the narration attributed to Ali, saying:
وهذه قراءة مخالفة للمُصْحف المجمع عليه فلا يجوز لأحد أن يقرأ بها فيخالف الإجماع وإنّمَا هي على معنى التفسير
This recitation conflicts with the agreed upon written Quran (mushaf). It is not permissible for anyone to recite it in prayer, as it contradicts the consensus. Indeed, it was only meant as an explanation.
Source: al-Hidāyah ilá Bulūgh al-Nihāyah 12/8425
The same holds true for variant texts narrated from other companions. Abu Hayyan mentions some of these attributed to Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, and then he says:
وَهَذِهِ الْقِرَاءَةُ مُخَالِفَةٌ لِسَوَادِ الْمُصْحَفِ الْمُجْمَعِ عَلَيْهِ فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُجْعَلَ تَفْسِيرًا وَكَذَا مَا وَرَدَ عَنْهُ وَعَنْ غَيْرِهِ مِمَّا خَالَفَ سَوَادَ الْمُصْحَفِ
These recitations conflict with the agreed upon written Quran, so they should be understood as explanations. Such was narrated from him and others that conflict with the written copy.
Source: al-Baḥr al-Muḥīt 1/260
The general rule, then, is that these variant texts might be helpful in understanding and interpreting the Quranic text, but they are not considered divine revelation. They may not be recited in ritual prayer or as a voluntary act of worship.
Ibn al-Jazari writes:
مِنْهُ مَا يُخَالِفُ رَسْمَ الْمُصْحَفِ فَهَذَا لَا شَكَّ فِي أَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ قِرَاءَتُهُ لَا فِي الصَّلَاةِ وَلَا فِي غَيْرِهَا
Among what differs from the written Quran, there is no doubt that it is not permissible to recite it, neither in prayer nor at any other time.
Source: al-Nashr fī al-Qirā’āt al-‘Ashr 1/32
And Al-Razi commented specifically on the narration attributed to Ali, saying:
رُوِيَ وَالْعَصْرِ وَنَوَائِبِ الدَّهْرِ إِلَّا أَنَّا نَقُولُ هَذَا مُفْسِدٌ لِلصَّلَاةِ فَلَا نَقُولُ إِنَّهُ قَرَأَهُ قُرْآنًا بَلْ تَفْسِيرًا
It is narrated as, ‘By the time and the calamities of the age,’ but we say this invalidates the prayer. We do not say it is part of the Quran, rather it is only an explanation.
Source: Tafsīr al-Rāzī 103:1
In sum, we may find variations of the Quranic text narrated by some of the companions, but these variants were not intended to be part of the Quran. They were explanations, interpretations, and clarifications they included in their personal copies. The written Quran we have today is agreed upon by all Muslims and there is no doubt about the veracity of the text.
Further reading:

Adult breastfeeding in Islam?


In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful
It is well-known that Islam does not allow unmarried men and women to touch each other in a sexual manner. The purpose of this rule is to avoid the serious sins of adultery and premarital sex.
However, a particular narration is cited out of context to imply that breastfeeding adults is allowed in Islam. There was a specific case in which the Prophet (s) allowed a household servant to drink the breast milk of a wife, which had been poured into a cup, to put the husband at ease. By doing so, the servant would become like a family member according to Arab culture, but this incident was limited to a single case on account of its unique social conditions; it was not made into a general rule in Islam.
Aisha reported: Salim was the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfa and lived with him and his family in their house. The wife of Abu Hudhayfa came to the Prophet and she said, “Salim has reached puberty as men do, he knows what they know. He enters our house freely, and I sense that this disturbs the heart of Abu Hudhayfa.” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
أَرْضِعِيهِ تَحْرُمِي عَلَيْهِ وَيَذْهَبْ الَّذِي فِي نَفْسِ أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ
Let him be fed with breast milk and he will be unlawful for you to marry, then the disturbance in Abu Hudhayfa’s heart will disappear.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1453, Grade: Sahih
Abu Hudhayfa’s wife returned and she said, “I fed him with breast milk (in a cup) and the disturbance in Abu Hudhayfa’s heart disappeared.”
In this situation, Salim grew up in the household of Abu Hudhayfa as a member of the family, although he was not directly related to them. When Salim reached manhood, Abu Hudhayfa was bothered that an unrelated man was coming and going into his house where his wife resided. In order to make him feel better, the Prophet (s) ordered that Salim drink the breast milk of his wife and thus he would become similar to a blood relative.
Salim did not touch the wife of Abu Hudhayfa or drink directly from her breast, because that would have defeated the purpose of the act from the start.
Ibn Hajar comments on this tradition, saying:
فَإِنَّ عِيَاضًا أَجَابَ عَنِ الْإِشْكَالِ بِاحْتِمَالِ أَنَّهَا حَلَبَتْهُ ثُمَّ شَرِبَهُ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يَمَسَّ ثَدْيَهَا قَالَ النَّوَوِيُّ وَهُوَ احْتِمَالٌ حَسَنٌ
Al-Qadi ‘Iyad answers the question with the interpretation that the milk was put into a cup and he did not drink it from her breast. Al-Nawawi said: This is interpretation is best.
Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 4814
Moreover, this was a special concession given to Salim and Abu Hudhayfa, because of their unique cultural and social situation. The companions of the Prophet (s) did not understand this case to be a general rule or permissible in other circumstances.
Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said:
وَاللَّهِ مَا نَرَى هَذَا إِلَّا رُخْصَةً أَرْخَصَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِسَالِمٍ خَاصَّةً فَمَا هُوَ بِدَاخِلٍ عَلَيْنَا أَحَدٌ بِهَذِهِ الرَّضَاعَةِ وَلَا رَائِينَا
By Allah, we do not view this but as a concession that the Messenger of Allah (s) granted to Salim specifically. No one with this type of feeding may enter our homes, and it is not our view.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1454, Grade: Sahih
In sum, the incident was a product of the unique cultural and social conditions that faced Abu Hudhayfa and his household at the time. The Prophet (s) devised a clever way to put Abu Hudhayfa at ease with Salim, his freed slave who lived in their home together with his wife. Due to the very specific nature of this case, it is not a general rule and cannot be extracted to other cases by analogy.
Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.

Invalid argument

I was having a discussion on Leviticus 20:10 on the punishment of adultery with a good Christian friend of mine. she said if there is no incident found in the Torah of such crime, then the law is invalid? i.e. since no mention of stoning a women over adultery is found in the Torah, Leviticus 20:10 is not applicable.

i showed her from the NT, Jews bringing an adulteress and reminding Jesus of the law. Jesus never reject the law, rather added his own twist by saying if your sinless then cast the first stone, making all of them accept they are sinners leaving the matter.

she still insisted, since Jesus never allowed the punishment to happen then the law is invalid?

if this is the criteria of deciding if something is acceptable on the ground of verifying if its mentioned anywhere in the Bible, then Christians have some serious problem to deal with.

1)
Paul said Jesus met 500 disciples during his post resurrection. now using our friends method of verification can you show us from the gospels narratives where it says Jesus met 500 of his disciples during his resurrection?

if you cant then this saying by Paul is a lie.

2)
Jesus said whoever looks at a women commits adultery in the heart. show us an incident from the bible who looked at women with lust making them commit adultery?

if you cant, his would mean the saying of your Jesus was a load of bull. that is using your criteria

3)
To prove who is true Prophet the Torah gives a guideline as found in Deuteronomy 18

show us from your Bible an incident where the uses used Deuteronomy 18 ans their guideline to prove Prophethood?

if you cant then the Deuteronomy 18 is meaninglessness. saying that, Leviticus 20:10 is a law which is sanctioned by your god many people were stoned for adultery historically we find such incidents in the Talmud. just because no incident was mentioned in the Torah doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Thanks for bringing this new twist on if it not found as an incident in the Bible then its invalid


----------------------------

Christian man said, "the Quran suggests the "Jews" tried to kill and crucify Jesus, but God saved him. there is no indication of the Romans being involved. However, the New Testament is clear, Jesus was killed by the Romans"
-----------------------------
The New Testament may claim Jesus was killed by the Romans, but Paul on the other hand is clear the Jew killed Jesus not Romans. Note Muslims by no means accept Jesus Pbuh was killed or crucified, rather he was saved by God Almighty and taken up. Example below is to show these Christians they don't know themselves what happened.
14 Brothers and sisters, you are just like God’s churches in Judea. I mean that you were treated badly by your own people, just as those believers in Christ Jesus were treated badly by other Jews— 15 the same Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets. And they forced us to leave their country. They are not pleasing to God, and they are against everyone else. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)
Even the Jews claim they killed Jesus of Nazareth
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve. (Talmud Sanhedrin 43a)
Notice from both Paul and the Jews, Jesus was killed and crucified. No mention of Romans playing any part. We also learn that the Jews were happy to declare they killed the messiah. Imagine they preserved it in their sacred texts. Their boast is found in many other tractates, e.g. "Sanhedrin 43b, 46a, 52a, 67a, 105a, 106b, 107b Yebamoth 6b, Gittin 57a.
How absurd, Paul makes no mention of Roman playing a role in killing Jesus, nor do the Jews. In fact the Jews take the blame on upon themselves. Case close.

Re-Examining Banu Qurayzah Incident

  Kaleef K. Karim & Aliyu Musa Misau Content: 1. Introduction 2. Jewish tribes Made a Pact with Muslims 3. Events that Occurred ...