Friday 14 July 2023

Hadith about food of Israelites and Eve’s betrayal

 


Many people have trouble understanding the following Hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband." (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3083)

Infact the same Hadith is found in Sahih Muslim (Hadith, 2674) too. In his commentary to Sahih Muslim, Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani explains this.

“Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay”:

Explaining this phrase he writes;

“It means that People of Israel were the first to keep food and meat until it would go bad and get rotten and if it was not for the People of Israel who started this habit, people would not have kept food for so long till it goes bad. This is how al-Abi[1] and al-Hafiz[2] explained it in al-Fath[3]. However; it does not mean that for the people before the People of Israel food and meat never rotted even if they saved it. But the meaning in fact is that the habit of saving the food was not common before them. For the people used to eat and feed others and nothing decayed till the People of Israel came, and they kept saving it till it would get rotten.”

So the meaning actually is that these were the people of Israel who started the general practice of hoarding surplus food with them which used to rot and get wasted. Before them generally the people used to collect food only for their own selves. And when they had surplus they would share it with other people (either through charity or trade). So they were actually the people who started the general practice that lead to wasting of food.

And he then quotes the report telling us when it so happened;

“al-Aini[4] narrated from Qatadah: "the Mann and Salwa used to fall upon the People of Israel, from dawn to the sunrise, like the ice falls. So they would take from it just enough for the day except Friday, when they had to gather for it and the next day (Saturday). But if they exceeded (their need), it used to get spoiled. So their saving used to cause a food waste for them and others." (Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, Darul Ahya al-Turath al-‘Arabi Beirut 2006 vol.1 p.140)

“Were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband”:

Shaykh Taqi Usmani writes:

“al-Hafiz (Ibn Hajr) said: It has a reference to what Eve did when she tried to seduce Adam to eat from the tree until he actually did. And since she was the mother of the daughters of Adam (all females), they in turn resembled her by birth and genes, that you can hardly find a woman that had not betrayed her husband in one shape or form. And here betrayal does not mean infidelity. Far be it! It rather refers here to the incident where Eve inclined to the desire of eating from the tree and she beautified that to Adam, it was counted as a kind of betrayal for him. But for all women who came after her, their kinds of betrayals varied in levels and forms. And what is similar to that Hadith is the Hadith that says "And Adam denied, so his descendants denied.[5]"

And in this Hadith a consolation for those men - who have been afflicted by some actions of their women - through the mention of what had happened from their great grandmother, affirming that this is one of their natural traits. So the man shouldn't excessively blame the woman who unintentionally or occasionally errs or wrongs him. And for the woman not to dwell in such a manner but to discipline herself and fight her desires. It is so in Fath al-Bari.” (Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, vol.1 pp.139-140)

Here I must elucidate on certain points to avoid confusion.

Does this Hadith imply the blame rests on Eve alone?

Not really, because the sin was committed by both and Islam holds that both of them were basically seduced by the Devil. In fact, Islamic sources explicitly state that Devil seduced them both. In Qur’an 20: 120 it is mentioned that the Devil seduced Adam –may Allah bless him. This Hadith suggests Devil first spoke to Eve –may Allah bless her- and Qur’an (7:20) plainly says that Devil seduced them both. So, clearly the Islamic standpoint is that both of them made the mistake. The betrayal referred to in this particular Hadith is about Eve speaking to Adam –may Allah bless them both- about the forbidden tree. Eve having been deceived spoke to Adam but Devil himself also seduced Adam as clear from Qur’an 20: 120.

Why specifically mention of Eve here?

As clear from Qur’anic references cited above Devil seduced both Adam and Eve and as Qur’an says they both prayed to Allah for forgiveness after the whole thing took place. See Qur’an 7: 22-23.

However the stress about Eve here is to instruct the man not to over react when a woman makes a mistake for the same was done by his own great grandmother. This is just natural for her. See the explanation of Hafiz Ibn Hajr quoted above.

Is it about Original Sin?

Next question is if the Hadith supports the Christian doctrine of original sin?

It does not because in Islam the issue of falling from heavens was a specific incident related to two individuals and their progeny is not to bear the brunt for it. The idea is simply that capacity to err and sin is in the genes of humankind. Man and woman have the innate weakness and characteristics as such which were made evident in the lives of the first humans. Qur’an refers to this fact often;

“And man is created weak.” (4: 28)

“Surely man is created of a hasty temperament.” (70: 19)

“Truly man is, to his Lord, ungrateful; And to that (fact) he bears witness (by his deeds);” (100: 6-7)

And a Hadith substantiates it and kills the notion of Original Sin and deliverance from it through vicarious atonement;

The Prophet –may Allah bless him- said, “Every son of Adam commits sin but the best of those who sin are those who repent.” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 2499. Classified as Hasan by Albani)

Certainly the idea of mankind as being sinful in nature, and that of a person being held responsible for the sins of his ancestors, are not even remotely related. Also the fact that it is mentioned along with the issue about the People of Israel, leads us to maintain that it is not a concept related to Christian dogma of original sin.

LET ME TURN THE TABLES

Usually some missionary haters of Islam use this narration to attack Islam, so let’s show them the mirror.

Bible asserts that only Eve was deceived and she herself gave the forbidden fruit to Adam.

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3: 5-7)

This is certainly different from Qur’an which says that both of them were deceived and Qur’an makes a special reference to Devil seducing Adam. Even the Hadith is not saying what the Bible says because taking it along the Qur’anic references to the story it becomes apparent that while she did speak to Adam about eating the forbidden fruit after being deceived, Adam was seduced by Devil himself.

According to Qur’an they both erred and then together sought Allah’s forgiveness whereas Bible is too dogmatic to assert to the contrary when it says;

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1-Timothy 2: 14)

As to the specific reference to Eve’s fault in the Hadith under consideration, let me reiterate that it was for a special reason to instruct men in their behavior towards women and we find that another Hadith specifically mentioning Adam to have erred.

And Bible even says that pain during child birth and man ruling over her was a punishment for Eve for what she did. (See Genesis 3:16)

All this highlights the difference between Islamic and Christian approach.

To summarize: In Islam both Adam and Eve erred and were equally responsible (Qur’an 7: 20) Adam was personally seduced by the Devil (Qur’an 20:120) whereas Bible maintains only Eve was deceived by the Devil and she made Adam to eat the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6) While Qur’an hold both of them responsible Bible categorically vindicates Adam and puts the blame on Eve (1-Timothy 2:14) Islam highlights their mistakes to show that it is only natural for humans to err Bible goes on to hold the subsequent generations responsible for the sin actually committed by their great grandparents (1-Corinthians 15:22)

Note: Translation of Hadith’s commentary  from Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim by sister Rabbaniya from Cairo, Egypt

Indeed Allah knows the best!


[1] Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Washtani al-Abi al-Maliki (d. 828 A.H.) For the referred passage see his work Ikmal Ikmal al-Muallim 4/101

[2] Ahmad bin ‘Ali Ibn Hajr al-Asqalanai al-Shafi’ (d. 852 A.H.)

[3] Fath al-Bari 10/110

[4] Abu Muhammad Mahmud bin Ahmad Badruddin al-‘Ayni al-Hanafi (d. 855 A.H.). For the quote given see his ‘Umdatul Qari 15/211

[5] Abu Huraira reported that Allah’s Messenger- may Allah bless him- said: "When Allah created Adam, He wiped his back and every soul of his offspring He was to create up to the Day of Resurrection dropped from his back. He made between the eyes of everyone of them a flash of light and presented them to Adam who asked, “O Lord, who are they?” He said, “These are your offspring.” He observed a man among them and was impressed by the light between his eyes and asked, “O Lord, who is he?” He said, “He is a man among the last of the communities of your offspring who is called Dawud.” He asked, “Lord, how long a life have You given him.” He said, “Sixty years.” Adam said, ‘O Lord, add to it forty years from my life.” When Adam’s span of life came to an end, the angel of death came to him, and he asked, “Do not another forty years still remain in my life span?” He replied, “Have you not given them to your son, Dawud?” But, Adam denied and his offspring denied (like him), and Adam forgot and likewise his offspring forgot, and Adam erred, so his offspring also erred." (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3076. Classified as Hasan by Albani)

Wednesday 12 July 2023

Why did Prophet Muhammad sell two black slaves ? Hadith Muslim 1602 4113 !

 


عنْ جَابِرٍ، قَالَ جَاءَ عَبْدٌ فَبَايَعَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَى الْهِجْرَةِ وَلَمْ يَشْعُرْ أَنَّهُ عَبْدٌ فَجَاءَ سَيِّدُهُ يُرِيدُهُ فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ بِعْنِيهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَاشْتَرَاهُ بِعَبْدَيْنِ أَسْوَدَيْنِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يُبَايِعْ أَحَدًا بَعْدُ حَتَّى يَسْأَلَهُ ‏"‏ أَعَبْدٌ هُوَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏
There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).


Basically, someone embrace Islam and pledged to emigrate with the Prophet. Nothing in the hadith point out to his race or color. What makes him "valuable" is his rejection of idol worship and submission to Allah. He was found to be a slave when his owner came to get his slave back. The owner would not have agreed to any price other than two slaves and the Prophet () had to agree.

Imam Nawawi said:
وفيه ما كان عليه النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم من مكارم الأخلاق والاحسان العام فإنه كره أن يرد ذلك العبد خائبا بما قصده من الهجرة وملازمة الصحبة فاشتراه ليتم له ما أراد

"This event points out how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the highest morals and general beneficence/kindness. He hated to return that person, who intended to emigrate and to stay as a companion/Sahabi, so he bought him to let him do what he wanted."

------
Explanation by brother Michael Nassar  - محمد نصار :

Background:

Islam was sent to shut down slavery as much as possible which was one of the main business of many tribes during that time. Many wealthy Muslims used to buy slaves from non-Muslims and free them.
In the Noble Qur’an, there are numerous Ayat that state that the punishment for a Muslim who commits a sin is to free a slave ( used to b known as neck). Sometimes in our modern world when we count people for example for eating out, a restaurant owner would say that the price per head is such and such. But back in the old days they used to call it ‘neck’.

For starter, let us understand some Islamic terminology.

Terminology:

Hadith = Statement of the Prophet and can varies from authentic to concocted=fabricated statement in our case this hadith=statement is correct.

Slave= at the time it means employee or servant or both and owned by a Master. Remember, slavery trade was a vital business for Quraysh tribe in Mecca and Islam came while that trade was existing.

Usually those slaves were owned by masters who used to sell, buy, and swap between each other.

Emigrate: this word from an Islamic point of view at that time usually means a Muslim or Non-Muslim who seeks to be Muslim is looking to flee a place where No Islam is practiced to place where Islam is practiced and he/she will feel safe to practice Islam.

In our case this slave wanted to flee Mecca where it was predominantly controlled by the non-Muslim Quraysh tribe at the time before the vast majority of Quraysh tribe became Muslims.
Additionally, the same word ‘emigrates’ applied when some Muslims fled Mecca to Ethiopia (was known by Abyssinia).

Obviously and automatically people back then would be classed as Free people and slaves. That is why Imam Al Nasai who documented this Hadith put it under the title of “Selling Animals for Animals of Different amounts or Quality, Hand to Hand” and not under free Muslims.

Lessons learnt from this hadith: -

1) Prophet Muhammad's, peace be upon him, fairness and immediate action to help the slave= someone weak=refugee who sought help. That slave=weak person=refugee wanted to be Muslim,was not forced to be Muslim. That slave was more like a refugee who fled his Master. Prophet Muhammad initially was not aware of the fact that this slave who fled Mecca did not get his
Master=employer=owner’s permission.

So once his Master came down to the Prophet seeking to get his slave back,Prophet Muhammed did not reject his request. To the contrary, he refused to grant automatic help to the slave without getting his Master=employer=owner’s consent and permission in the form of buying / swapping this slave with two slaves who either were not Muslims or Muslims and The Master=employer=owner was Muslim.

2) We learn also from this Hadith that to stand beside the weak and support their choice to be Muslim (Freedom in Religion)

3) Not to force the slave=weak person= refugee to go to where came from.

4) Offer the Master=employer=owner compensation in the form of swapping with two black slaves who the prophet had them and they were working like employees as they were treated well. But also, they were given the choice to go or stay.

5) We have learnt from this Hadith as well that the brotherhood of Islam is much higher that the brotherhood of a non-Muslim.

6) We have learnt that the two slaves=employees also were let go and were not forced to stay if they did not want to.

7) Islam did not immediately and instantaneously shock the non-believers but gradually worked on draining out slavery as a problem. To ensure the whole community is not going to completely reject Islam.

Similarly, when Islam forbidden Alcohol, it is start gradually as well since it is hard for the human nature to sharply stop something the perceive that it is of a great benefit to them.

Friday 7 July 2023

Examining Ibn Masud’s reaction to Qur’an preservation efforts

 


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Ibn Mas’ud’s reaction to efforts regarding Qur’an preservation during Uthman’s time has been a subject of interest to orientalists and missionaries. In this article we shall put the lies on the issue in coffin.

Firstly, you need to study description of efforts during Uthman’s time regarding Qur’an preservation. You find that HERE.

Ibn Masud’s reaction:

Let’s first study the narration that shows Ibn Mas’ud’s reaction to establish what his grievances were.

In Jami’ Tirmidhi, ‘Ubaydullah bin ‘Abdullah is recorded to have said:

“Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" (Jami’ Tirmidhi, hadith 3104)

Note: Above translation is taken from Acts-17 Ministry’s blog. Its significance will be discussed in while. Hold your breath!

What were Ibn Mas’ud’s grievances?

1- Seemingly Ibn Mas’ud’ first grievance was on him being left out of the noble task and Zaid bin Thabit, who was definitely much younger to him, being made the head of the committee assigned with the task.

2- The fact that he was being asked to give up his Mushaf and adopt one prepared by the committee headed by Zaid bin Thabit.

In Mustadrak al-Hakim we read that when Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and Huzayfa bin Yaman tried to persuade him to give up his personal manuscript, he said:

“By Allah I will not hand this manuscript over to them. Allah’s Messenger –may Allah bless him- personally taught me more than seventy surahs and now I should hand this (manuscript) over to them? By Allah, I will not give it to them!” (Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 2896. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)

In essence the grievance was simply about being asked to hand over his personal manuscript and this aggravated further when he found he was to do it in favor of the Mushaf prepared by someone much younger to him. Reading this, one must consider Ibn Mas’ud’s own grand stature.

Simply Zaid’s being in charge of the endeavor could have not sparked such a strong reaction as we know Ibn Mas’ud did not show any anger when Zaid was made the in charge of a similar task during Abu Bakr’s time. The demand of giving up his personal manuscript was the real issue.

There was no difference in the text:

There was no difference on the actual text between Ibn Mas’ud’s manuscript and the official one. This is known because.

1- Zaid bin Thabit undertook a similar task during Abu Bakr’s time and Ibn Mas’ud never raised his eye-brows then.

2- After Zaid had completed the work during Uthman’s time, he compared the mushaf prepared then with the suhuf prepared during Abu Bakr’s time. And he testified;

“I compared the Mushaf with those manuscripts; they did not differ in anything.” (Mushkil al-Athar, Hadith 2645)

This leads us to logical conclusion that Ibn Mas’ud mushaf had no fundamental textual difference with the official mushaf.

The actual reason of grievance has just been described above.

Why was Ibn Mas’ud asked to give up his Mushaf?

This brings us to the question, as to why was Ibn Mas’ud asked to give up his Mushaf? Answer to this question is already given in my paper on Uthman’s efforts regarding Qur’an preservation i.e. personal masahif (manuscripts) did not take into account all the sanctioned readings at certain instances in the Qur’an. Personal Masahif prepared by great scholars like Ibn Masud and that too directly learnt from the Prophet –may Allah bless him- were never wrong and could never be disputed with, but there is no denying that they could not encompass all the sanctioned variants. And Uthman wanted them to be destroyed only to avoid potential trouble as all sanctioned readings were already preserved in the officially prepared Masahif.

As this idea rests on the Seven Ahruf thing, Christian missionaries have tried to counter this by alluding to large scale differences of interpretations about Seven Ahruf and that Ibn Masud’s mushaf did not allegedly have three surahs (i.e. no. 1, 113 & 114).

As to Seven Ahruf, in-sha’Allah a paper with extensive discussion on the subject is in the pipeline that will kill the misconceptions about it. And the no. of surahs in Ibn Masud’s manuscript will be discussed in full in another forthcoming article dedicated to the subject.

Due to the complexity of the issues and the fact that things are interrelated I have but no option except to refer the readers back to earlier articles or ask to them to wait for forthcoming work.

Did Ibn Masud accuse Companions of deceit in reading Qur’an?

Lately we have seen Christian missionaries using a certain report from Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra, sometimes referred to as Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir.

They present the narration like this;

-- Ibn Masud does not think highly of today's Quran, the one collected by Zaid. In comparing himself to Zaid, he says:

The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.” (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444) –

This is wrong translation. Translation should actually be;

So conceal the manuscripts! I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.”

Allah knows what has lead to the addition of the words “in the reading of Qur’an” in the translation given by missionaries. See the actual Arabic text below and decide for yourself;

فَغَلَّوُا الْمَصَاحِفَ. فَلأَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ مَنْ أُحِبُّ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثابت. فو الذي لا إِلَهَ غَيْرُهُ لَقَدْ أَخَذْتُ مِنْ فِيِّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - بِضْعًا وَسَبْعِينَ سُورَةً. وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ غُلامٌ لَهُ ذُؤَابَتَانِ يَلْعَبُ مَعَ الْغِلْمَانِ

So the translation given by missionaries makes “ghalla” to mean “deceit” while the basic meaning of the word and the one intended here is “to hide/conceal.” Following are my evidences for this.

1- In the similar report in Jami’ Tirmidhi wording is;

قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ: " يَا أَهْلَ العِرَاقِ اكْتُمُوا المَصَاحِفَ الَّتِي عِنْدَكُمْ وَغُلُّوهَا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَنْ يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ} فَالقُوا اللَّهَ بِالمَصَاحِفِ

Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3104)

Mark this, this is the translation they themselves gave and here “ghalla” and all its forms have been translated as “conceal”.

Also note at the end the narration says, “Meet Allah with the masahif” now if “ghalla” is translated as “deceit” then what would the whole thing mean?

2- In Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud Khumayr bin Malik says:

سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ يَقُولُ: " إِنِّي غَالٌّ مُصْحَفِي، فَمَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ أَنْ يَغُلَّ مُصْحَفًا فَلْيَغْلُلْ، فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَنْ يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ}

“I heard Ibn Masud saying: I have concealed my Mushaf. Whoever can conceal his mushaf he should conceal it. For Allah says, “And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement.”” (Kitab al-Masahif, Narration 52)

Now if “ghalla” is to be translated “to deceive” then narration above would make Ibn Masud says, “I have deceived my mushaf.” Why do these missionaries divorce with reason? Reason is not that bad!

There are other forms of the same narration that show “ghalla” can never mean “to deceive” here.

* In all the above discussed narrations Ibn Masud asked people to conceal their manuscripts because they were based on his own personal manuscript, and for his above mentioned grievance he initially reacted this way.

James White at his best- lying!

This is perhaps nothing when we even find them concocting stories on this issue. James White in one his debates with Muslim scholar, Shabir Ally alleged that Ibn Masud was beaten for not giving up his manuscript and he ended up dying for this reason. See the proof in this video. He lied and said he was quoting from Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi’s book, “An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran” whereas it is nowhere to be found in the book. That’s the best they can do!

Did Ibn Masud later agree with Uthman?

We know initially Ibn Masud reacted furiously, but did he later agree with Uthman and rest of the companions? Yes, he did. He might not have given up his personal manuscript but he did agree with the idea behind the scheme of Uthman, made into a reality by the team headed by Zaid bin Thabit.

Ibn Kathir tells us;

“Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- wrote to him (Ibn Masud) bidding him to follow the Companions in what they had agreed upon due to its benefits, (and because it lead to) unity of opinions and the end of differences. So, he inclined to it and agreed to follow and to give up the opposition –may Allah be pleased with them all.” (al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya 7/217)

Ibn Kathir even goes on to reason that it was only natural for Ibn Masud to agree on such a fundamental issue. He first quotes the following report;

Abdul Rahman bin Yazid said: Abdullah bin Mas’ud entered the mosque in Mina. He asked how many rak’ahs have the Commander of the Faithful (i.e. Uthman) offered in Zuhr salah? People said, “(He offered) four.” Ibn Masud offered four rak’ahs. People asked, “Have you not told us that the Messenger of Allah –may Allah bless him- and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar offered two (in Zuhr prayers at Mina)?” He said, “Indeed and I narrate to you the same now even but I do not like to differ.”

On this Ibn Kathir comments;

“So if Ibn Masud followed Uthman this way even in secondary issues, how much (more willing) he would have been in following him regarding Qur’an and in sticking to the recitation to which he had bound the people.” (al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya 7/217)

Conclusion:

There was some initial misunderstanding between the Companions but evidences show it was never about the basic text of the Holy Qur’an, and even that misunderstanding between Ibn Masud and Uthman etc. was later removed –may Allah be pleased with them all! Excitement of missionary haters of Islam is rather pointless.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

DID THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD PBUH PLAGIARISE ANCIENT GREEK EMBRYOLOGY?

  DID THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD PBUH PLAGIARISE ANCIENT GREEK EMBRYOLOGY? Pre-release version 0.5 – February 2011 Commentators assert that the qu...