Islam Critique's dilemma

Islam Critiqued has gained a fascination for the Talmud (oral tradition). He tries to use his limited understanding by deceiving his Patreon followers that he found something troubling for Muslims e.g. the Quran copied from the oral tradition, Talmud/Mishna/ Legend of the Jews etc…

He claims since the oral tradition, (Talmud/Mishna/ Legend of the Jews) came before the Quran and a lot of its contents are found withing the Quranic stories then the Quran must have borrowed its stories and elaborated them? This is one absurd claim which carries no ounce of truth nor does it help Christians as we will see later In Shaa Allah.

Let's start by citing what the Quran says about the events which happened in the past.

These are some stories from the past that we reveal to you. Neither you, nor your people knew them before this. So be patient. The future belongs to the pious. (Surah 11:49)

In their stories is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not a fabricated tale, but a confirmation of what came before it, and a detailed explanation of all things, and guidance, and mercy for people who believe. (Surah 12:111)

   

We relate to you their story in truth. They were youths who believed in their Lord, and We increased them in guidance. (Surah 18:13)

 He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. (Surah 3:3)

As you can read the Quran is very clear in informing us that the stories which are being mentioned were already in circulation however, the Quran is telling the us the "true" events on what really happened.

The Quran is confirming what came before it. Many stories were circulating from the Jews. The Jews added their own twist to those stories. The Quran tells us the true events to what happened.  If the stories of Prophets were being passed down by oral traditions and twisted how could you tell what is true and what is false?

Remember the same stories found in the "Torah" are also oral traditions written down by Jewish rabbis.  The events took place first then decades or centuries later they were written down.  E.g. the Gilgamesh speaks of the flood of Noah.  The "Torah" you have also speaks of the same flood? Let's assume Moses was the author of Genesis, are you saying Moses wrote 2600 later the story of Noah and it was unknown to other people? How do you explain the Gilgamesh?

What about the hammurabi code which predates the "Torah". The hammurabi code mirrors many laws of the "Torah". So, the question is, what makes you say the oral tradition did not have some truth in what they said? Bear in mind the same bible you claim to defend stems from the same form oral tradition.  Luke is a prime example to this. Luke 1:1 states "eyewitnesses passed down the information which Luke is using. This is the oral tradition.  It's highly possible the Jews had accurate information about events of the past which gradually was fading by the word of mouth or deliberate changes were made. This kind of stuff happens with the bible even now. It's easy to make an allegation but to prove it is difficult. You have no evidence at all from the 7th century that the Quran copied and previous information. We have evidence from ancient text Proverbs plagiarised from Egyptian instruction of Amenemope. Isaiah plagiarised from Yasna (sacred text of the Zoroastrians) even Jesus plagiarised from Bhudda.

If Islam Critique believe stories or legends which pre=date a particular revealed or written text makes it more authentic then we have a surprise for him.

Christians throughout the world unanimously agree Jesus was crucified on the cross which killed him. The source they use to verify this "historical event" is the New Testament which they believe accurately documented this event.  Here’s were Islam Critique disqualifies the authenticity of his bible.

According to Islam critique any ancient document which pre-dates scriptures but be accepted as giving sound information. The earliest manuscripts which speak of the crucifixion of Jesus come from the 3rd century. We have nothing earlier which mentioned the crucifixion narratives.

We have the Babylonian Talmudic documents which stemming from the 2nd century predating the gospel narratives which speak of Jesus.

BELOW WE DEMONSTRATE HOW THE GOSPELS TOOK INFORMTION FROM EARLIER SOURCES I.E. TALMUD AND CHANGE IT TO MAKE JESUS LOOK GOOD

Jesus was stoned and then "hanged" (Talmud Sanhedrin 43a-45b)

Jesus was burned after he was lowered into dung to his armpits with his mouth forced open and molten lead was poured in, burning his internal organs. (Talmud Sanhedrin 52a)

Jesus was strangled after being lowered into the dung (Talmud Sanhedrin 56a, 106b)

Jesus is in Hell where his punishment is boiling in hot semen. (Talmud Gittin 57A)

Jesus committed bestiality, corrupted the people, and is turned into Hell. (Talmud Sanhedrin 105a)

Jesus limped on one foot, was blind in one eye, practiced enhancement by way of membrum, committed bestiality with an ass, and was a fool who did not know his beast's mind. (Talmud Sanhedrin. 105a, 105b)

Jesus attempted to seduce a woman, was excommunicated by a Rabbi, and then worshipped a brick. He was a seducer of Israel and practiced magic. (Talmud Sanhedrin 107b)

Using Islam Critique's criteria on authenticating earlier traditions put his gospels in a serious dilemma. Let's go through a few on them

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was stoned and then hanged." The gospels of Islam Critique show no sign of this Jewish practice of stoning sanction by the Torah instead says he was beaten then hanged.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was burned, lowered in dung and forced to open his mouth so lead can be poured." The gospels of Islam Critique clearly didn't mention this punishment.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was strangled then lowered in dung." Islam Critique's gospels makes no mention of Jesus being strangled?

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus is in hell boiling in hot semen" Islam Critique's gospels tell us Jesus was in paradise not hell?

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus committed bestiality" Islam Critique's gospels don't mention Jesus committed bestiality however, does state we was left alone with the beast to be tempted.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus limped on one foot, was blind in one eye, practiced enhancement" Islam Critique's gospels doesn't make mention of such features or practices?

Do you see the dilemma Islam Critique put his bible into? The earliest documents speak of a severe punishment inflicted on Jesus. The gospels took that information, but added their own personal censored version dismissing what the earliest traditions said.

Islam Critique should use all the early documented tradition which pre-date his gospels and embrace them.  Why did the gospels take Jesus's trial and punishment for the Talmud and change it?

Wait we have more. Since Islam Critique loves using the Talmud to prove it early attestation as authenticity. What does he make out of the following information from the Talmud?

1)

This is a reference to the passage from the Talmud that: “Adam was created alone to teach you that whoever takes a human life is considered by the Bible to have destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a human life is considered by the Bible as if he preserved an entire world (Sanhedrin 4.5).

Take attention to the second line from the saying 

"that whoever takes a human life is considered by the Bible to have destroyed an entire world"

it says "whoever takes a human life of a Israeli is considered BY THE BIBLE as destroying the entire world" 

Can Islam Critique show us from his "inerrant, preserved Bible", such saying? Where can we find this quote from the Bible which says "killing one Israeli is like killing the whole world?"

2)

The Gemara asks: Why does the verse say: And he said? It should say: And I said. Why does the verse say: And you spared? It should say: And I spared.Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: David said to Saul: By Torah law, you should be killed, as you are a pursuer who seeks to kill me, and the Torah says: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. But it was the modesty that you displayed that spared you. (Talmud Berakhot Daf 62b:8)

Christians shouldn't have a problem showing us where in the Torah it say’s “If one comes to kill you, kill him first” Unless the Jews were reading a different Torah.

If Islam Critiqued cannot show us from his bible where those saying are then we conclude the Jews he relies on confirmed his book is no more than garbage

3)

Show us where this saying can be found word for word in the Torah? If you can't then admit the ancient Jews were reading a different "Torah"

Similarly the Torah says, "Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth]," and reishis means Torah, as in "Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way". (Midrash Bereishit Rabbah Chapter 1

Islam Critiqued's bogus argument only backfired on him

Rabbi Abrahamson the golden calf

Q. Salamaleikum Rabbi, according to Quran Aaron did not make golden claf and not lead people astray. But Torah talks about Aaron's role in this sin. What do you think about this issue?

A. Wa aleikum salaam wa rahmatullah.

The Talmud teaches "Whoever says that the Prophets sinned is mistaken" (Shabbat 56a). In the case of the Prophet Aaron (pbuh) it is never said that he actually fashioned the idol. The English translation is not precise, in the Hebrew there is a break between "tied it up in a cloth" and "made it into a molten calf". The written Torah reads "He [Aaron] took [the gold] from their hand[s], tied it up in a cloth, and [someone else, i.e., sorcerers] made it into a molten calf. THEY said: "These are gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from the land of Egypt!" The word "molten calf" is related to the "they" in "they said: 'This is thy god, O Israel". Because "they" exclude themselves from Israel, it cannot be referring to the Prophet Aaron (pbuh) or the Children of Israel.

Instead it refers to the non-Jewish Erev Rav "mix multitudes" that came out of Egypt with the Children of Israel (see 12:38). In the Qur'an these people are given the same Samiri (Samaritans) which is another name for the intermarried mixed nation who attached itself to Israel, but was not part of Israel.

A Midrash is brought by Rashi that explains that the whole problem was that Moses (pbuh) said he would be gone for 40 days. The Children of Israel has miscalculated and expected Moses (pbuh) to return a day earlier. When Moses (pbuh) did not return according to their calculation, they people began to panic. They had just come from Egypt and were immersed in idolatry, so the Erev Rav (mix multitude) found it easy to convince the people to ask for an idol to replace Moses (pbuh). They did not intend for the idol to be in place of God, but rather it was shirk - which is also strictly forbidden - to represent their understanding of God in a way they could see. The calf had been significant in their salvation of the plague of the firstborn, so they choose that symbol.

Aaron's (pbuh) nephew, the Prophet Hur (pbuh) tried to rebuke them, but they killed him. Aaron's (pbuh) recognized a step by step regression in the people's rational faculty as they became under the grip of this overwhelming panic. He observed and concluded that "it would be better if the Israelites transgression was ascribed to him rather than to them" meaning that if they sinned and Moses (pbuh) returned, their grief might be so great and their faith so weak, that they would never be able to repent. He also concluded that if they built the alter on their own, it would be finished immediately. He therefore undertook its construction hoping to tarry in his work, in order to delay them one day until Moses (pbuh) arrived.

After the people wanted to kill him, Aaron (pbuh) agreed to begin the work, but only with the intention to delay them. He specifically asked for the jewelry from the wives and children, even though the Torah clearly says in the following verses that the men had gold as well, because he hoped that this would take more time to gather. After the gold calf sprang out of the oven, Aaron (pbuh) instisted that an altar be made, and that he would fashioned an altar himself, not letting anyone assist him in the work. He proclaimed the "feast" would only occur the next day, giving Moses (pbuh) time to arrive.

At each case, Aaron's (pbuh) plans did not work out as he expected. The gold was gathered quickly. And when Aaron (pbuh) through the gold into the oven, the Erev Rav invoked their "magic" that they had learned in Egypt. They threw dust into the oven (also brought by the Islamic commentator al-Suddi) such that demons worked mischief and a golden calf sprang out of the oven. Aaron (pbuh) was not expecting this, but Aaron (pbuh) recognized it was a test from God and called upon them not to fail the test. He tried to delay them from worshiping the calf by telling them to wait for an altar and "a feast". Thus Aaron (pbuh) did not want to make an idol (chas veshalom) nor did he actually create it.

Yet the Torah does find some fault (but not sin) with Aaron (pbuh). Many of the Children of Israel did not agree with to the idea of a Golden Calf, and fighting among the children of Israel began. The Levites began killing their fellow Jews and Aaron (pbuh) did not stop them. So the Torah does not find fault with Aaron's (pbuh) delay tactics, but rather that he let the Children of Israel fall into chaos. "Moses saw that the people were out of control - since Aaron had let them get out of control - so that they were an object of derision to any who might oppose them [the Levites and others]." (Exodus 32:25). The Qur'an gives a similar account, mentioning that Moses (pbuh) "put down the tablet and seized his brother by the head, dragging him towards himself..."

In the Qur'an a similar verse is expressed: Allah SWT told Moses (pbuh) that his people were being tested in his absence. That test was in the form of Samiri's fraud. By definition, those submitted to a test can either pass or fail it depending upon their training and capability. So, the reason why Moses (pbuh) upon return reprimanded Aaron (pbuh) was not that he was holding the latter responsible for leading his people astray. On the contrary, the reason why Moses (pbuh) rebuked Aaron(pbuh) was that he had been made the man in-charge in his absence by Moses (pbuh) (see Qur'an 7:142) and was therefore expected by Moses (pbuh) to have rescued his people by dint of his leadership, which he had been unable to do.

The Written Torah explicitly says that the golden calf came out of the fire by itself, fully formed "And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off; so they gave it me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.'" (Exodus 32:24)

The Midrash Rabba clarifies the terms "the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron" and "he saw and he made and altar before it" by saying (=bringing the tradition) that the context of the verse was that "the people gathered themselves against Aaron saying just as we did to him [the Prophet Hur] so will we do to you." meaning that Aaron (pbuh) was forced to try delaying tactics because the people threated to kill him. The word "gathered against" vayikahel 'al means a disorderly, violent mob, something explicitly said in the Qur'an.

One commentator brings a tradition that Aaron (pbuh) couldn't have been the one who fashioned the golden calf because in Exodus 32:5 it says "And when Aaron saw, he built an altar before it". If he had fashioned it himself, why would the Torah mention to say "he saw"? Another commentator brings a tradition that what Aaron (pbuh) saw was "an angry mob". Another commentator brings a tradition that the words "Aaron saw" is the same as "Aaron feared" in hebrew. All these interpretations reflect aspects of the complete understanding of the Torah verse.

Thus find that the Torah and the Qur'an agree. In fact the Qur'an explicitly says things that are only hinted at in the Torah, thus safekeeping the proper interpretation "confirming the Scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety"

Force non-Muslims to the side of the road?

 Abu Amina Elias February 15, 2016 

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful

Whenever we read a narration about the Prophet, we need to understand it within its historical, theological, and moral context. One such narration concerns how to treat the people of the Book, Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims when using the road:

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لاَ تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَلاَ النَّصَارَى بِالسَّلاَمِ فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِهِ

Do not initiate greetings with the Jews and Christians. When you meet any of them in the road, then make him take its narrowest path.

Source: Sahih Muslim 2167, Grade: Sahih

On the surface, it seems like the Muslims are being commanded to be rude to others. However, the Prophet made this statement to his companions when they were departing to confront a Jewish tribe that had just violated their peace treaty.

Ibn Al-Qayyim comments on this tradition, saying:

لَكِنْ قَدْ قِيلَ إِنَّ هَذَا كَانَ فِي قَضِيَّةٍ خَاصَّةٍ لَمَّا سَارُوا إِلَى بَنِي قُرَيْظَةَ

It is said that this was in a specific situation, when they were marching to the tribe of Qurayzah

Source: Zād al-Ma’ād 2/388

Authentic versions of this tradition as narrated by other companions make this context clear.

Abu Basrah reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنَّا غَادُونَ عَلَى يَهُودَ فَلَا تَبْدَءُوهُمْ بِالسَّلَامِ فَإِذَا سَلَّمُوا عَلَيْكُمْ فَقُولُوا وَعَلَيْكُمْ

Verily, I will depart against the Jews in the morning, so do not greet them with peace and if they greet you with peace, then say: And upon you.

Source: Musnad Ahmad 26695, Grade: Sahih

This narration is authentic according to Al-Haythami in Majma’ al-Zawāʼid 8/44 and Al-Albani in Irwā’ al-Ghalīl 1275.

Abu Abdur Rahman Al-Juhani reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنِّي رَاكِبٌ غَدًا إِلَى الْيَهُودِ فَلَا تَبْدَءُوهُمْ بِالسَّلَامِ فَإِذَا سَلَّمُوا عَلَيْكُمْ فَقُولُوا وَعَلَيْكُمْ

Verily, I am riding against the Jews tomorrow, so do not greet them with peace and if they greet you with peace, then say: And upon you.

Source: Sunan Ibn Majah 3699, Grade: Sahih

This narration is authentic according to Al-Albani in Sahih al-Jami’ 2464 and Sahih Ibn Majah 2999.

From these, we can understand that the command to not initiate peaceful greetings and to not accommodate their path was specific to these hostile tribes. In another context, the companions would greet non-Muslims with peace. The Muslims in this case were simply told to continue marching on their way without stopping to accommodate these people.

Even so, it was not permissible for the Muslims to harm these non-Muslims while they walked along the path.

Al-Qurtubi comments on this tradition, saying:

وَلَيْسَ الْمَعْنَى إِذَا لَقِيتُمُوهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ وَاسِعٍ فَأَلْجِئُوهُمْ إِلَى حَرْفِهِ حَتَّى يَضِيقَ عَلَيْهِمْ لِأَنَّ ذَلِكَ أَذًى لَهُمْ وَقَدْ نُهِينَا عَنْ أَذَاهُمْ بِغَيْرِ سَبَبٍ

The meaning is not that if we meet them on a wide road we should force them to take its narrowest edge, as this would be harming them and we have been prohibited from harming them without a just cause.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 11/40

It is not allowed in Islam to harm anyone or anything without a just cause. Letting them take the narrow part of the road was simply a means to avoid honoring them, since at the time their tribe was showing hostility towards the Muslims.

Ibn Hajar comments on this tradition, saying:

مَعْنَاهُ لَا تَتَنَحَّوْا لَهُمْ عَنِ الطَّرِيقِ الضَّيِّقِ إِكْرَامًا لَهُمْ وَاحْتِرَامًا

It means do not give up your section of the road to them in order to honor and respect them.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 11/40

If we were to honor such people at the time of their wrongdoing, that would only embolden them to commit more crimes. A little harshness in this context is actually an act of love and mercy because it is meant to discourage their bad behavior. This is called tough love.

In general, Islam encourages us to be kind and gentle even to those who are very rude to us, as long as they are not violent against us.

Aisha reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ رَفِيقٌ يُحِبُّ الرِّفْقَ فِي الْأَمْرِ كُلِّهِ

Verily, Allah is kind and he loves kindness in all matters.

Source: Sahih Bukhari 6528, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi

The Prophet made this statement about a group of Jews that cursed him inside his own home, telling his wife Aisha to be kind and not to curse them in retaliation.

In sum, the tradition about not initiating greetings with non-Muslims and making them use the narrow path was specific to the context of hostilities. It does not mean non-Muslims should be harmed or that we should be rude to them as they use the road. Rather, the general rule in Islam is to be kind and gentle with others.

Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.

Unreliable Hadith about Sunset in the Spring of Warm Water

نشرت بواسطة: Waqar Akbar Cheema 12:35 PM في 'arsh , 3991 , abdullah bin ahmad , abu dawud , abu dharr , murky , spring , sun , Throne , warm , water 7 تعليقات

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

Analysis of the reliability of the alleged report about the sun setting in a spring of warm water according to the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

There is a Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud that has been brought up by some anti-Islamic polemicists.

The narration:

The narration along with the chain of narrators goes as;

Yazid bin Harun- Sufyan bin Husain- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3991)

Related narrations:

In Musnad Ahmad these words are part of a longer narration reported through same chain of narrators;

Abu Dharr narrated, “Once I was with the Prophet riding a donkey on which there was a saddle or a (piece of) velvet. That was at sunset. He said to me, ‘O Abu Dharr, do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It sets in a spring of murky water, (then) it goes and prostrates before its Lord, the Exalted in Might and the Ever-Majestic, under the Throne. And when it is time to go out, Allah allows it to go out and thus it rises. But, when He wants to make it rise where it sets, He locks it up. The sun will then say, “O my Lord, I have a long distance to run.” Allah will say, “Rise where you have set.” That (will take place) when no (disbelieving) soul will get any good by believing then.’” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21459 al-Risala ed.)

This narration is quite similar to the narration found in many hadith works including Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc. except the words “It sets in a spring of warm water.”

In Sahih Bukhari it goes as;

Sufyan (al-Thawri)- Al-A’mash- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Narrated Abu Dharr: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun is quickly proceeding towards its destination. That is the designing of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. " (36.38) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Hadith 421)

The significant difference is of the words “it sets in a spring of warm/murky water.”

Analysis of the chains of narrators:

From Abu Darr, it both ways i.e. with and without the words under consideration, it narrated by Yazid al-Taymi and from him by his son Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi. From Ibrahim it is narrated by six different narrators;

1- Al-A’mash: And from him at least five people narrate it. See Sahih Bukhari etc.

2- Yunus bin ‘Ubaid: And from him at least three narrators report this narration. See Sahih Muslim etc.

3- Musa bin al-Musayyab al-Thaqafi: From him it is narrated by Abdah bin Sulayman, See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1189

4- Abdul A’la al-Taymi: The narrator down from him is Mis’ar, See Hilyah al-Awliya 5/89

5- Harun bin Sa’d: Abdul Ghaffar bin al-Qasim narrates from him. See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1191 and Al-Tabarani’s Mu’jam Al-Awst, Hadith 4470

6- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah: The sole narrator down from him is Sufyan bin Husain, See Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, Mustadrak al-Hakim, Musnad al-Bazzar etc.

Of all these various routes from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, it is only through Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah that these words “It sets in a spring of warm water” are narrated.

In short, there are six narrators reporting the hadith from Ibrahim bin Yazid, and only one of them i.e. Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah quotes the particular words. And to add to the trouble there is again only one narrator down from him and he is Sufyan bin Husain whereas parallel to Sufyan there are at least eleven people narrating the hadith without these words on the authority of five different people narrating from Ibrahim bin Yazid.

Following flow diagram for the above detail gives the pictorial display the strangeness of these words. Down from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi only the narrators with red outline for their names give the words under consideration against loads of other narrators who do not report these words.




The narration is anomalous (shaadh) and defective (mu’allal):

This fact alone is enough to make the narration dubious. No doubt both Al-Hakam and Sufyan are per se trustworthy narrators but because on their respective levels they go against much reliable and numerous narrators. Such a narration reported this way is termed as “shaadh” i.e. anomalous.

Carefully read the definition of anomalous (shaadh) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 A.H.) in his magnus opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;

“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006 p.57)

Also see the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn Salah;

“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.67)

And when a report or a part of it becomes “shaadh” it ceases to be a sahih (sound) report. For this the definition of a “Sahih hadith” will help.

Hafiz Ibn Salah writes;

“The sahih (sound) hadith is a “supported” hadith (al-hadith al-musnad), the isnad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its point of termination. The sound hadith can be neither anomalous (shaadh) nor defective (mu’allal),” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.5)

So merely being “sahih al-isnaad” is not enough for the report itself to be sahih.

Therefore, the very fact that Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah’s narrates differently from five other narrators reporting it on the authority of Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, makes the narration “shaadh” (anomalous) which is a kind of weak (da’if) reports.

But the trouble with the narration does not end here. Down from Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah, Sufyan bin Husain is also unique in narrating these words whereas the number of narrators down from narrators other than Al-Hakam narrating it from Ibrahim al-Taymi is at least eleven. There is not a single supporting narrator for Sufyan either.

Hafiz Al-Bazzar (d. 292 A.H.) after giving this narration writes;

“We do not know anyone other than Sufyan bin Husain reporting it through the chain: Al-Hakam bin ‘Utayba –Ibrahim- his father- Abu Dharr, while Yunus bin ‘Ubayd, Suleman Al-A’mash and Harun bin Sa’d have also narrated it from Ibrahim.” (Musnad Al-Bazzar- Bahr al-Zakhkhar, under Hadith 4010)

And this is important, not only because it adds more to the oddity of the narration, but also because Sufyan bin Husain though generally considered authentic was also criticized by few scholars. This criticism does not harm his general narrations but becomes significant when he goes out of the way and narrates what other narrators from the same original source do not.

Muhammad ibn Sa’d said about him: “He was reliable (but) he made many mistakes in his narrations.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990, vol.7 p.227 No. 3417)

Conclusion:

These details make it quite clear that according to rules of reporting it is not right to attribute these words to the Messenger of Allah- on him be the peace and blessings of Allah.

Apparently, the words from Qur’an 18:86 were confused and appended to the hadith that had no link to the ayah whatsoever. The narrator failed to understand the real significance of the verse and the hadith and for apparent semblance he confused the two.

The verse from the Holy Qur’an i.e. surah 18 ayah 86 is simply about how the sunset appeared to Zulqarnain and even the classical Muslim scholars understood it like that. The detailed explanation of it is found HERE.

As to the meanings of the Hadith of Abu Dharr- may Allah be pleased with him- about the sun prostrating under the Throne (‘arsh) of Allah, visit THIS PAGE for explanation.

So the excitement of the missionaries is in vain. Pity!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Hadith

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“Once of the things that Allah revealed in the the Qur'an and then abrogated was that nothing makes marriage prohibited except ten breastfeedings or five well-known (breastfeedings).”

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الصَّمَدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ ثُمَّ سَقَطَ لاَ يُحَرِّمُ إِلاَّ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ أَوْ خَمْسٌ مَعْلُومَاتٌ ‏.‏

Grade

: Sahih (Darussalam)

English reference	: Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1942
Arabic reference	: Book 9, Hadith 2018

From <https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9>

They insinuate that this tradition (which is not even authentic) demonstrates that the reason why the verse for stoning the Adulterer is not with us in the Qur‟an today is because the sheep ate up the paper it was written on. This argument is absurd for the following reasons: · There is no reason to believe that this was the only piece of paper that had this verse written on it. · There are hadiths which show the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) refusing to approve the writing down of that verse, due to it being abrogated from the Qur‟anic text (to be preserved through the Sunnah). Umar (ra) asked "'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity) · The companions already had this verse memorized (ref Saheeh Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194). Unless they want to argue that this sheep also “ate the memories” of the companions who memorized those verses, they have no arguments left to to advance.

If the sheep eat the verse of the Quran, how did Umar Bin Khattab Ra manage to know the verse? Was that the only hard copy that several scribes had written.

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (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 (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. (Sahih Muslim Book 17 Hadith 4194)

Thought you said the verse from the Quran was missing? From the above Hadith The companions already had this verse memorized. Unless they want to argue that this sheep also “ate the memories” of the companions who memorized those verses, they have no arguments left to to advance.

Maybe you can tell us which sheep eat verse from Matthew 18:11 and Acts 8:37

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“Once of the things that Allah revealed in the the Qur'an and then abrogated was that nothing makes marriage prohibited except ten breastfeedings or five well-known (breastfeedings).”

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الصَّمَدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ ثُمَّ سَقَطَ لاَ يُحَرِّمُ إِلاَّ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ أَوْ خَمْسٌ مَعْلُومَاتٌ ‏.‏

Grade

: Sahih (Darussalam)

English reference	: Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1942
Arabic reference	: Book 9, Hadith 2018