In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
As alluded to in the former post, the manner which the Quran treats the Jewish history of failures can be paralleled with the account of the prophet Joseph and his treatment of his sinful brothers. When his brothers and former persecutors were within his powerful grasp, as he had all authority and right to exert justice and revenge, he instead, in his legendary patience, dignity and magnanimity with which God had established him since his youngest years, he still gave them the benefit of the doubt
"Do you remember what you did with Yusuf and his brother while you were jahill?"
Yusuf's tact and mercy manifest in that opening statement by saying, in an investigating, ambiguous tone that what they did was in a time where they were ignorant, meaning that they are expected to know better by now and not repeat the misdeed he passingly alludes to.
Second, he doesnt even make it personal by speaking in the first person "me" but instead by alluding to himself in the third person. Then when they recognize him, instead of making them feel the lowest by boasting of how life has vindicated him so that now he is the highest, he immediately attributes his status to God, it is a favor which isnt on account of any personal achievements, he is no different than them. In addition God's favor, he says, is within anybody's reach, not just himself
"surely he who guards (against evil) and is patient (is rewarded) for surely Allah does not waste the reward of those who do good".
One can hardly think of a more intricately humble, merciful address than this, given the circumstances. And the rest of the dialogue, which is more akin to Yusuf giving moral lessons to his brothers without demeaning them, is full of similar wording. When he declared that Allah forgives them, again avoiding to make it personal "I forgive you", and that no blame will henceforth be attached to them, Yusuf remained consistent and respected that declaration a little later on when he saw his childhood vision unfolding, he only mentioned God's favor in protecting him during his years of imprisonment, without saying anything of his much more dangerous ordeal of being thrown in a well by his brothers. Whatever evil had occured between he and his brothers -he is wording the statement so as to leave open the possibility that he might be equally blameable although he never did anything wrong to warrant the cruelty with which his older brothers treated him in his childhood- was because
"Shaitan had sown dissensions between me and my brothers".
Not only he puts himself as potentially having equal share of responsibility for the conflict, he attributes the source of evil to Shaytan, not even his brothers who stand blame free just as he had previously pledged. These kind of intricacies as are contained in just a few verses among many other verses within that specific story of the prophet Yusuf's life, clearly cannot have been devised by any human being orally and publicly transmitting an account without any chance at going back to a previous statement to correct and edit himself to improve his overall eloquence and coherence
"this is of the announcements relating to the unseen (which) We reveal to you, and you were not with them when they resolved upon their affair, and they were devising plans".
This is the kind of divine mercy with which the Quran treats them. When it points out some of the dark periods of their history, it isnt done wantonly or inappropriately but always in a specific context and to draw a moral lesson, both for them as a nation and anyone hearing and reading it. A parallel reading of the list of incidents starting from 2:40, with the same ones related in their books reveals the mild manner in which God has spared them further humiliation by not detailing their dark past.
This past the Quran says was "thrown behind the backs" of their educated elite, unknown to the majority of the Quran's addressees, even among the Jewish laymen of the time. Even if we taken into account the loathsome words that later Muslim scholars, the likes of ibn Qayyim, describe them with; tricksters, conspiracists, liars, slanderers, consumers of usury and bribe, killers and rejecters of prophets etc. every single one of those accusations and more, are directed at them collectively in their own sacred writings.
The Quran also, almost every time it cites one of those past failures, demarcates between the transgressors and the upright among them so as to not condemn them collectively although they have failed collectively to uphold the covenant they were bound to with God as a community. Those righteous few are in contrast to those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4.
That separation is done in the apocalyptic hadiths as well, where in a time where several supernatural events will occur, including inanimate objects and plants pointing to those among them that will side with the dajjal to murder innocents, they are said to be on both sides of the conflict between good and evil. Those on the wrong side (Muslim,B54,H99), in opposition to the returned prophet Jesus will be completely eliminated, together with their allies among all religious groups including Christians and deviant Muslims who will seek to kill other Muslims (Sunan Ibn Majah 179, Sahih Bukhari 1881, Musnad Ahmad 3546, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah 1/493). The same destruction will befall them as was done to previous nations that sought to destroy the messengers and their followers. The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944).
Their biblical history speaks at length of the wrongdoings of the majority of them, despite the presence of a few righteous among them, and how those sins have often plunged most of their community into suffering, and for several generations, as pledged by God in their scriptures Ex20 and later observed in Jeremiah for instance when the nation was decimated by the sword and famine, from the youngest to the oldest, men and women, if not taken captives.
The principle that God judges men individually, and not in groups does not negate the infliction of collective suffering even because of the misdeeds of a few, and this is an objective reality. Such reality may repeat itself with any community, including the Muslims 8:25 which is why believers of all times have been urged by their prophets to purge evil from their communities, hasten each other to good deeds and guard one another from evil. Muslims are warned, through examples of the past, to choose very carefully their leaders because when such elite and rulers begin their mischief, they drag most of the community with them in corruption and lead it to destruction
17:16"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction".
As happened in the past, the Almighty may punish a whole nation for the crime of a single individual if that whole nation sanctions it, directly or passively. As stated by Ezekiel in his warnings to Israel, the righteousness of the few will not deliver the guilty when the time comes Ezek14:20, although it may delay it Prov28:2. If the efforts of those few righteous remnants fall on deaf ear and that the decreed punishment is if such a scale that even the righteous cannot escape it, their reckoning will be with God, as the prophet stated
"If Allah sends punishment upon a nation then it befalls upon the whole population indiscriminately and then they will be resurrected (and judged) according to their deeds. "
In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
The Quran doesnt hate anybody, it states facts. The reason why Jews are addressed as monolith, whether in the Quran or their own books and prophets following Moses is that because from all people, and up to this day, no community claims continuity to their ancestors and the rights and obligations placed on them than the Israelites. They were bound as a nation by a covenant in which they entered while being persuaded, one can even say compelled, by the sight of miracles. The terms of the covenant were that should they breach it, then it would result in their rejection from God's grace as a whole, even if not all of them transgress.
However this prided covenant was, and still is, in great majority and even sometimes entirely disregarded, with them only laying claim to the favors which were in fact conditional to obedience (land grant, divine protection from enemies, light unto the nations etc). This is actually one other reason to call them out for their sins as a single unit, to show them that if they want to lay claim on the favors conditionaly bestowed upon their ancestors, then they should equally recognize as a nation the less glorious parts of their history.
Another thing to consider is that the Quran, which is often accused of being anti-Jewish or antisemitic actually spares the Israelites and is much more tempered and balanced in its description of their early history than their own scriptures, down to the Christian writings and Jesus' outright insults towards them. Jesus himself was no antisemite, but his followers, the descendants of Greek and Roman pagans, certainly were and gladly used the crude depictions and insults that Jesus reportedly makes of his fellow "vipers" and "sons of satan". Jesus' racial slur is so intense, the general feel of the Gospels so anti-semitic that one can only conclude they had been written by Gentiles.
The Quran speaks of their failures and rebellions under various prophets, as well as their multiple divine destructions, in a passing manner without delving much over the details, as if it is seeking to spare them some dignity, just as it does not report the scale of their prophets' loathing of them. This is among the facets of divine mercy, the like of which was inculcated to the prophet Yusuf/Joseph.
In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
A note on the Quranic style. In the Quran when it comes to reminding of past narratives and anecdotes, the objective isnt dry storytelling and genealogies as in most of the Bible where one can easily and quickly lose track of names, places and other details. These little details, if omitted wouldn't make humanity miss out on anything in terms of guidance, and in fact confuse the reader and distract his attention to trivial matters. The Quran is not a historical record or dry, impartial document: it is argumentative and impactful to get people to believe and actively reform themselves and their environment.
Its powerful statements are in an intellectual, spiritual and emotional language that every culture across time and space can appreciate. The Quran's objective isnt story telling, but "message telling" and maximizing its audience's attention to the precept(s) of the story. We thus find in the Quran that most of the characters recognizable through their Biblical counterparts have their stories retold without necessary links and in disconnected episodes. As a result, they largely lose their temporal and spatial dimensions, thus perfectly fitting into the Quranic moral style of narrative. The Quran therefore is not a story book in a beginning to end format, it is a never ending cyclical experience. Like the word or speech of God, it has no beginning or end.
Muslims will not be asked on the Day of Judgment the details of the people of the cave or how Noah's flood occurred, how many generations passed between a person and another, the names in a genealogy or whether they memorized the names of people in the Quran. They will be questioned as to how they responded to the lessons from the different incidents and stories related in the Quran. Thus to focus on the message, the Quran injects the passage of a well-known story, whenever the larger context a sura requires it. And when it does so, it only puts the details of that story that are relevant to that specific context. That is why one sees variations in repetitions, but never contradictions. The only exception to that style of narrative is the story of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf which takes the form of a beginning to end narrative in one place, and a highly eloquent, intricate one at that.
Those unable to appreciate that Quranic style speak of contradictory, or incomplete repetitions. This is because first and foremost they approach the Quranic text with the above Biblical paradigm in mind; the Quran, instead of being read on its own is seen as a garbled version of multiple Judeo-Christian sources. If, however, the text is approached according to its own thematic unities, its lack of historical detail and absence of chronological order become unproblematic. And this is the prevalent approach among western scholarship nowadays.
The second common problem for those reading the text occurs when they are unable to connect the different repetitions properly among one another and fail to grasp the manner in which each repetition fits in the context of a particular sura. This a side note isnt circular reasoning as it doesnt presume the notion of textual coherence. It is textual coherence that objectively establishes itself, through consistent repetitions, recurrence of similar themes and notions in different contexts.
These repetitions always retain a core meaning, and are always thematically correlated with similar passages in other suras, like conversations and dialogues between the suras. The brilliant Pakistani scholar Islahi called the recurrence of themes in several suras "complementarity".
What is remarkable from a linguistic perspective is that the Quran was uttered publicly, live and as a speech, which prevents any type of editing and yet it forms one incredibly well knit whole, from verse to verse, paragraph to paragraph, sura to sura. If we take the example of sura baqara, the longest of all and revealed over the course of 10 years while other suras were being simultaneously revealed, it is structured in an interconnected manner allowing it to be thematically structured in many different ways.
This is a vast field of Quranic studies, with many sub-branches, studied by both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars; the interconnection between suras, passages, verses, words and even letters and how the whole thing remarkably fits together. The idea of the Quran being a dull, boring or incomprehensible repetitive book is a discredited proposition, not only by the scholars of Islam all throughout their exegetical works spanning centuries, but also more recently by non-Muslims who have been doing, and keep on doing, a remarkable job at unveiling the intricate connections of the text, from verse to another, paragraph to paragraph and sura to sura. See Norman Brown's work on sura 18 for instance. That weak assertion is only still circulating among uneducated critics of Islam, and missionaries.
For most of modern Islamicists, the Quran has to be approached as a text on its own, with its own internal coherence to be properly understood. So long as explanations to its passages are sought from the perspective of its alleged, elusive and countless proposed sources, the Quran will remain an obscure book for those approaching it. Here is just one of the thematical structuring of sura Baqara, in a symmetrical construction called ring structure; - 1st subject from v1-20 faith vs unbelief/Last subject v285-6 dua about belief-hypocrisy-disbelief. - 2nd subject from v21-39 God's creation and knowledge/2nd subject from down God's creation and knowledge v254-284 - 3rd topic v40-103 the Israelites receive the law/3rd subject from down from down about the laws given to Muslims v178-253 - 4th subject Ibrahim faces tests v104-141/4th one from down Ibrahim's nation, the Ishmaelites are tested v153-177 - middle section culminates with the new direction of prayer, the Kaaba symbolizing that new nation and its new law
And all this symetrical ring structure leads to the statement of the Muslims having been made the ummatan wasata/balanced nation, a statement located in the center of a sura composed of 286 verses, at exactly verse 143. Every single Quranic sura on its own forms, like baqara, a cohesive argument.
Also, because many of its passages can be read through the lens of another passage from within the sura, other analysts have approached its structuring in a pericope. For example, the story of Adam in sura Baqara pericopes throughout the sura. The Israelites were told to enter a town and enjoy its sustenance v58 similarily to the instructions previously given to Adam and his spouse upon entering the garden v35. But just as Adam and his spouse werent content with what they were given, the Israelites began grumbling for the sustenance they had in captivity v61. And just as Adam and his spouse found their Lord forgiving once they repented, some of the Israelites were eventually forgiven for their worshipping the calf and desisting prior to Moses' return v54.
In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
As to the hadith about Jews changed into rats, besides the report itself describing the incredulity of those that heard it reported on behalf of the prophet by only one person, Abu Hurayra, it also shows the prophet himself giving a loose personal opinion based on observation, not a statement of fact
"Muslim2997 a: Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger said: A group of Bani Isra'il was lost. I do not know what happened to it, but I think (that it 'underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats. Don't you see when the milk of the camel is placed before them, these do not drink and when the milk of goat is placed before them, these do drink. Abu Huraira said: I narrated this very hadith to Ka'b and he said: Did you hear this from Allah's Messenger? I (Abu Huraira) said: Yes. He said this again and again, and I said: Have I read Torah? This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ishaq with a slight variation of wording."
The same uncertainty is found in another similar hadith
"Then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called him out at the third time saying: O man of the desert, verily Allah cursed or showed wrath to a tribe of Bani Isra'il and distorted them to beasts which move on the earth. I do not know, perhaps this (lizard) may be one of them. So I do not eat it, nor do I prohibit the eating of it".
This observation by the prophet could have been directly or indirectly influenced by a belief floating among the Arabs, more particularly the Banu Salim who forbade themselves to eat the flesh of lizards, asserting that it was a metamorphosed Jew. Clearly these ahadith cannot be taken as related to the Quran passages above or as a basis to interpret them. The hadiths are worded as potentially erroneous subjective suppositions concerning a tribe of bani Israel contemporaneous with the prophet, and the Quran relates a historical incident far preceding the prophet.
Even if the Quran statement of "Be despised apes" is taken as a literal transformation, the Quran says only the transgressors among them were inflicted with that punishment and a prophetic tradition suggests they did not transmit their condition, dying out in their state (hadith scholars say after 3 days)
"Mention was made before him about monkeys, and Mis'ar (one of the narrators) said: I think that (the narrator) also (made a mention) of the swine, which had suffered metamorphosis. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily, Allah did not cause the race of those which suffered metamorphosis to grow or they were not survived by young ones. Monkeys and swine had been in existence even before (the metamorphosis of the human beings)".
So both the Quran and hadith speak of a punishment that was inflicted once, in one location, directed at the transgressors in the community. The incident cannot be used to paint Islam as diabolizing the Jews as a whole. Further, both the Quran and ahadith repeatedly distinguish between the righteous among the people of the book and the sinners deserving of condemnation. Whether mention of that shameful event is found in rabbinic literature or not is irrelevant in determining the authenticity of the story. Is oral Jewish tradition and the Talmud expected to faithfully preserve every incident in the life of each Jewish community of the diaspora prior to the finalization of its text? Did the incident even occur before its composition? Is the holocaust mentioned in the Talmud?
In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
The Quran refers with very degrading terms, not only to non-Muslims, but also Muslims whenever they neglect their spiritual potential and steep to the level of animals. This is because the value of a human being in God's eyes, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or social class, rests only in his God-consciousness 49:13. Stripped of that quality, a human being is worthless. This is a major Quranic theme. When all has been created with an inner truth, for a higher purpose and for an appointed term in a universe whose phenomena all testify to a higher reality 30:8,14:19,10:3-6 by Allah who is Truth in essence 22:6,62 it necessitates that everything false or based on falsehood, ie devoid of its higher purpose ultimately perishes.
That reality many times manifested in this very world with the uprooting of transgressing nations altogether. The Jews for instance when they neglect the Torah which they claim to uphold and practice 62:5, they are compared to donkeys that carry a load while totally unaware of its contents. Donkeys merely feel the burden. It is not different for them to carry rocks and wood or books containing the most precise secrets of Creation and the most fruitful lessons for a better life, as the Quran often describes the previous revelations.
The Hebrew Bible itself, quoting the prophet Isaiah, reduces them to lower than donkeys in the times when the nation had almost reached total spiritual collapse Isa1:3 and Malachi echoes how lowly and contemptible they were made to be in the eyes of the whole world for having forsaken the Torah Malachi2:8-9. To Hosea they are a "useless ustensil" as they lost the divine immunity that was granted to them as long as they remained faithful to the covenant. HE also calls them wandering wild donkeys in foreign land, in search of alliances with the pagans Hos8:8-9. Their leaders and elders are blind and slumbering, compared to dumb dogs for their failure to warn and avert spiritual disaster despite the presence of prophets among them Isa56:10.
The unrighteous foreigners that persecuted the Jews are spoken of in similar debasing terms and with such aversion that they should not be touched Isa52:1,11,Ps94:8. All these parallels humans/animals have one common denominator, the loss of all morality and spirituality. In reference to such loss, God in Ps32:9 warns David not to become
"like a mule that does not discern; whose mouth must be held with bit and bridle, so that when he is being groomed, he does not come near you".
To avoid that outcome, David is to be careful to follow God's guidance
Ps32:8"I will enlighten you and instruct you which way [to go]; I will wink My eye to you".
The Quran uses such metaphors for all people, not only the Jews, who blindly turn away and reject divine guidance
7:175,179,8:22,25:44,74:49-51"Then, why do they turn away from the reminder? As if they were frightened wild donkeys, Fleeting from lions".
Again, the metaphor applies to those who behave in this life without spiritual awareness and God-consciousness
47:12"and those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as the beasts eat".
The idolaters, because of their sacraligious practices are najis/ritually impure 9:28 just as in Judaism those of "uncirumcised flesh or hearts" shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a ritualy pure entity, whether a human or else, such as the Temple.
As a side note, recently two copies of inscriptions prohibiting the entry of nonbelievers to the Temple have been found on Temple Mount, which Josephus wrote about. These inscriptions were on the dividing wall that surrounded the Second Temple, which prevented non-Jews from accessing the interior of the Temple courtyard. The "warning" stone, which is at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, warns non-Jews of the perils of entering the sacred Temple.
In the HB and throughout the books of the Prophets, and down to the book of "writings", non-Jewish ways are paralleled with the images of lewdness, harlotry, foolishness, lurking around to lure the weak of heart.
As a side note, it is interesting to note that this evil path is symbolized in the HB by a woman, ensaring the man, thus perpetrating the mysoginist representation of females, going back to the convoluted and corrupted story of creation. This symbolizm is well depicted in Prov7 or Ecc7:26 where apostasy, sinfulness are personified by the female sex, and the way it lures man to her
"And i find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, her hands are bonds; whoever is good in God's sight will escape from her, and a sinner will be taken by her".
This is because even though it is hard enough to find a truly righteous man, it is even moreso difficult in the case of women
Ecc7:28"While i was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all".
Jesus in the NT makes use of such metaphors as well when he compares the spiritually unclean to dogs and swine Matt7:6. The main thing distinguishing man from animals is his spirituality and sense of morality. This aptitude is what raised him to be God's vicegerent on earth, a honored creature excelling most of God's creation 14:32-33,17:70. So when anyone corrupts and forsakes that aspect of his being, and in addition rejects Divine guidance only to follow his low desires then he loses that distinction. He becomes the lowest of the lows although having been made in such a mold that could raise him up to moral and spiritual heights, with the highest rank being that of a prophet of God. That reality is captured through four oaths in 95:1-5. The oath taken by the 2 of the choicest and noblest fruits, the fig and the olive, followed by an oath by the 2 locations most blessed in terms of revelation, mount Sinai and Mecca, serve as argument to the positive potential of the human being.
Like the above mentioned fruits, he may become among the most select by rising spiritually, the highest humans in terms of spiritual nobility being the prophets, hence the oaths taken by 2 locations associated with 2 of the most eminent of them, Moses and Muhammad. The comparison of the spiritually dead to animals, and even lower in value, as inert and senseless as a stone 2:74, is very apt in that an animal such as sheep or cattle, despite being of very weak intellect can still properly process what it hears (voice of the herdsman) or sees (location of the herdsman and the rest of the flock) in order to find guidance. The spiritually dead cannot make use of any of his senses and so is unable to properly process the perceived information to find guidance and rise to ultimate success. A sheep becomes more apt in finding its correct direction and thus thriving through its life. Dumbness (muteness) illustrates how the inability to listen leads to lack of interest, which would naturally be expressed through further verbal inquiry, reflexion, exchanges etc.
2:18"Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back"
25:44"They are nothing but as cattle; nay, they are straying farther off from the path".
In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
Every religious scriptures uses degrading terms, mostly in reference to animals, when referring to sinful people. In the case of the Quran and the "Jews into apes" passage, It is to be noted first that this speaks of a special kind of transgression.
The sabbath violation is one of the sins they have been most persistent and constant in committing throughout their history, despite it being one of the few ordinances so important in God's eyes when it was first ordained upon them that transgressing it was punishable by death. This is revealing of their mentality, disregard and disrespect to God which the Quran exposed when it revealed what was truly in their hearts while they were made to swear into the covenant 2:93. They would transgress the Sabbath even in such critical times as when they had just finished rebuilding the Temple that had been destroyed precisely for their misbehavior Neh13:15-22.
That stain particularly in regards to te Sabbath is so great on them, whether in their own books or the Quran, that when Allah speaks of those on whom that ordinance came, ie the Israelites, it calls them 16:124"those who differed about it". It is as if no sooner was it ordained that they already resisted its application. Allah tells those sabbath breakers to "Be despised apes".
Many indicators, both linguistic and textual as attested by some of the earliest authorities even among the taabiun (Mujahid), point to it being a metaphor on how lowly these transgressors among them were made to be in God's eyes, as well as to the rest of the righteous community and those who kept their commandments 7:159,163-166. The tafsir scholar Mujahid, who had studied under Ali ibn Abi Talib and is said to have reviewed his tafsir 10s of times under ibn Abbas, explicitly ascribed to this view. He compared the simile to that made elsewhere in the Quran regarding the spiritually barren, who carry the divine scriptures like donkeys carrying a load of which they dont know the value.
The textual indicators to it being a metaphor are seen from the next verse, 2:66 were it says to those to whom it was said to "Be despised apes", that they have been made an example to their community and posterity. How were these people made into an example to posterity? Physically transforming them into apes would have been witnessed by one generation at most. It would have had no effect on posterity as the verse says. Today and as reported in the HB, any Jew would recognize how many of their ancestors reached the lowest spiritual degradation, which the Sabbath breaking was their main marker and indicator, and were consequently destroyed and humiliated among the pagan nations. That is how the metaphorical expression materialized to posterity and was a well known pattern in their history, to be punished, humiliated and abased lower than animals, for their transgressions
2:65"And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be apes, despised and hated".
The emphasis on humiliation, in addition to the beastly reference, suggests that it is the abstract state of abasement that is meant. The mere physical transformation into apes would have been enough in itself as a humiliation. As the HB states about those who do any type of work on the sabbath
Ex31:14"that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people".
In fact this occurred in the times of the prophet. Allah threatens the Jews who knowingly twist the scriptures and religious knowledge so as to turn the believers away from the straight path, that the same curse will befall them
3:47"as We cursed the sabbath-breakers".
None of them were transformed into animals, but they sure were punished, humiliated, abased and exiled for their enmity towards the prophet of God.
The incident the Quran chose to illustrate their lack of consideration and abuse of the Sabbath is a highly meaningful and appropriate one; the prophet Muhammad is told to question them (a questioning can be done with the object of reminding one of a forgotten occasion) when the Jewish inhabitants of a coastal city would fish on the Sabbath and not on the other days 7:163-6.
They did so out of pure laziness, unconcerned by the spiritual consequences, blinded by their sinful, rebellious hearts, simply because it happened that whenever the Sabbath arrived, the fish were easier to capture
"their fish came to them..appearing on the surface of the water"
but on other days the fish did not readily come in that favorable manner and had therefore to be patiently sought and trapped as normal fishermen do. The incident shows how convenience, not even necessity or hardship, was a good enough reason for them to transgress one of the most basic and sacred ordinance. For comparison, the hadith describe a situation where a traveling group of Muslims among whom some were in a state of ihram (forbidden to hunt, among ither restrictions prior to the pilgrimage) while others werent, refused participating even indirectly in the capture of a prey, despite their hunger
"Once, while I was sitting with the companions of the Prophet at a station on the road to Mecca and Allah's Messenger was stationing ahead of us and all the people were assuming Ihram while I was not. My companion, saw an onager while I was busy Mending my shoes. They did not Inform me of the onager but they wished that I would see it Suddenly I looked and saw the onager Then I headed towards my horse, saddled it and rode, but I forgot to take the lash and the spear. So I said to them my companions), "Give me the lash and the spear." But they said, "No, by Allah we will not help you in any way to hunt it ' I got angry, dismounted, took it the spear and the lash), rode (the horse chased the onager and wounded it Then I brought it when it had dyed. My companions started eating of its (cooked) meat, but they suspected that it might be unlawful to eat of its meat while they were in a state of Ihram Then I proceeded further and I kept one of its forelegs with me. When we met Allah's Apostle we asked him about that. He said, "Have you some of its meat with you?" I gave him that foreleg and he ate the meat till he stripped the bone of its flesh although he was in a state of Ihram".
What is interesting is that there is actually a debate in the Talmud about whether it is permitted to lay out nets before Shabbat in order to catch fish on Shabbat. This shows that there is a historical basis for the discussion or that there was a need to circumvent shabbat in that specific case, which then triggered the debate. The Shammai schools forbids it while the one of Hillel allows it (shabbat 1:7). The latter school of interpretation is regarded as more authorative, making it permissible to lay traps for fish ahead of the Sabbath, thus opening the way for their distortions of the spirit of the Law to suit their needs. Instead of using that occasion, the peculiar behavior of the fish, as a means by which they can put Shabbat above worldly convenience, they actually sunk deeper into sin and defiance. Not only that, they repeated their transgression openly, despite the admonishments of righteous members of the community.
Their spirituality was so degraded that they would turn a deaf ear and rather disobey than miss a trouble-free opportunity. It is important to keep in view that the Quran does not generalize this behavior to the whole community. A closer reading of the verses shows that there were not only 2 but 3 groups; the rebellious, the admonishers, and the ones passively sitting by, with the understanding that a punishment would soon befall the transgressors 7:164. This means that although, prior to the incident many had transgressed the Sabbath, some had successfully passed the trial by reforming themselves and desisting from catching the fish despite the convenient opportunity. But 1 group failed the test and was consequently punished. Also, the fact that a group knew that the Sabbath violators would be divinely punished, before their abasement to the level of despised apes, reinforces what was said earlier concerning the well-known, established pattern in their history, to be punished, humiliated and abased for their transgressions
2:65"And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be apes, despised and hated".
In fact this occurred in the times of the prophet. Allah threatens the Jews who knowingly twist the scriptures and religious knowledge so as to turn the believers away from the straight path, that the same curse will befall them
3:47"as We cursed the sabbath-breakers".
None of them were transformed into animals, but they sure were punished, humiliated, abased and exiled for their enmity towards the prophet of God.
In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
The prophet Muhammad lived among his people for 40 years before the start of his prophetic mission, without anything from his speech foretelling either fully or partly a knowledge of the information and principles provided within the book
12:3,102,28:44,11:49"These are announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you, you did not know them-- (neither) you nor your people-- before this; therefore be patient; surely the end is for those who guard (against evil).".
The only thing distinguishing him from the majority of his people was his pure conduct and detachment from their ungodly habits
10:16"Say: If Allah had desired (otherwise) I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have taught it to you; indeed I have lived a lifetime among you before it; do you not then understand?".
As stated in 42:52, before his appointment to prophethood, he never had any idea that he was going to receive a Book, or that he should receive one. He was wholly unaware of the heavenly Books and the subjects they treated.
Likewise, although he believed in Allah, intellectually he was not aware of the requirements of the Faith.
In addition, from a strictly materialistic worldview, nothing indicates, neither from his character or the consequences upon himself and his loved ones, that he initiated his mission to satisfy any greed or lust. During the 40 years he lived among them, he was a person whose integrity they never questioned, and whom they considered to be an upright person just like Salih or Lut prior to the beginning of their preaching 11:62,162. Just like Jeremiah was inspired with warnings and glad tidings to his people for 23 years Jer25:3, the Quran was revealed over the span of 23 years. Practically speaking, the idea of a secret teacher following Muhammad for 23 years and in different locations and circumstances where revelation is known to have descended is completely untenable: while hiding with his companions in ravines, in his home with his family, on the battlefield etc. besides fulfilling every function and responsibilities of a statesman, husband, friend, teacher etc without ever being noticed.
Besides the first short revelation which descended upon him as he had secluded himself in a cave to escape his sinful, idolatrous environment which he abhorred, all other revelations came to him openly with many times multiple witnesses present. The prophet was no mystic sitting in hope of being contacted by the divine. He was a righteous monotheist, a hanif among his people who searched for the truth using his inherited knowledge and observation of the nature around him. Many verses allude to his pre-revelational condition with words evoking how he had no expectation whatsoever of coming in contact with the divine realm and being chosen for prophethood.
This teacher of his, from the mass of informants proposed throughout the ages by the critics of Islam, from Waraqa b. Nawfal to ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh and ‘Uthman b. al-Huwayrith, to the anonymous hanif communities or other monotheists such as Zayd ibn Amr, the hermit Bahira, some unnamed foreign slaves knowledgeable in Judeo-Christian oral and written traditions, to Zayd ibn Thabit's crucial role in originating the Quranic text, none of them could have done what is alleged that they did without being noticed, and without eventually coming out against that student or plagiarist who was taking all the credits for himself. So either that teacher was the most stealthy human to ever live, or it was another entity.
Supposing Muhammad's source was living outside the Hijaz, as some modern critics have opined. All historical records available show that Muhammad had made only three trips outside Mecca before his Prophethood: At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Medina. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria. It is highly imaginary to assume that the Quran, a long term revelation that includes interactive passages with its addressees, where revelation answers a specific theological, social, economical etc matter, resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips. It is no less imaginary to assume there was any meaningful contact and religious dialogue between him and anyone, like Bahira, that led to the development of any of the Quran's intricately well knit discourse on any of the Christian themes and figures, conveniently discarding all the historical blunders and improbabilities of both canonical and apocryphal scriptures that allegedly were the subjects of discussion. And which testimonies are there to corroborate the conspiracy claim? Who witnessed the exchange and why did that private teacher equally recognize the prophet hood of Muhammad? Among the reasons why such conspiracy, and other similar false beliefs and revisionist ideas perdure despite the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is that the authors of these theories, and their supporters, find comfort in the feeling that at least a few propositions among many have some shade of truth in them, and that they receive enough approval by a certain public. Developmental psychologists have found that these 2 factors had a great impact on people's sense of self-certainty; the more one is convinced of knowing something, even though he doesnt, the less likely he will be curious enough to explore the topic further, failing to learn how little he actually knows. This way people remain stuck in their belief and thus will keep repeating it.
The Prophet's enemies kept a close watch on him, trying hard to prove him a liar. They could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret encounter. Tribal life in the desert was very open making it very hard to have regular secret meetings without being noticed. That is why the prophet's critics, even as reported in the Quran, would point to various suspects that were living in everyone's plain sight, although they could not prove any of their claims and neither did these individuals ever agree with these calumnies. And yet these intellectually bankrupt individuals of the past and today want to come and argue that the most intricate of human discourses came to be through occasional chatters and hearsay around a camp fire.
The Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Medina more than 13 years after the revelation of the Quran had started. And they certainly werent going on in secret. The objective was to point their moral and spiritual errors as well as warn them of the consequences of their persistence in deviation. He met them as a teacher, not a student. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam, including some of their most learned figures. It should also be noted that the vast majority of verses relating the history of past prophets were revealed in Mecca, before these interactions with the people of the book occured. What insignificant Judeo-Christian community was the prophet interested in appeasing at point, as sometimes suggested by the mischievious critics? His relatives who surrounded him never questioned his truthfulness instead they gave their wealth and lives for his cause, contrary to some previous prophets, such as Jesus who was rejected and treated as a madman by his closest circle. The prophet Ibrahim himself was rejected by his father who almost stoned him 19:46.
His availability, his openness for inquiries and visits was such that towards an advanced stage of the prophetic mission, revelation came down to regulate the manners of those seeking to visit him, including spending in charity at first, as well as announcing themselves prior to entering his private quarters where his wives resided. So, because that proposition of him having secret meetings was weak, his enemies instead resorted to character assassination. They resorted to all sorts of calumnies the likes of which previous prophets were victims of, including being a liar, sorcerer or a madman demon possessed.
The Quran would then plainly challenge them; if it is something man made then, with all their resources, including the riches they tried bribing the prophet himself with, the availability of masters of eloquence the likes of which the Arab world has rarely seen since then, in addition to all supposed teachers of his, they should be able to respond to the challenge without much difficulty. But the rest is history. To this day, the enemies of Islam have been conjecturing just as they had always been, trying hard to uncover the sources of the Quran. They certainly did and will continue pointing to a plethora of potential human, textual, traditional candidates. On the surface, these sources seem believable but immediately crumble when one compares them on a macro- as well as micro level to the Quran, let alone if one considers other historical facts the likes of which have been pointed to earlier.
What is undeniable, as is evidenced by the recent trend of studies on the Quranic engagement with previous traditions, is that the Quran shows a very high degree of knowledge of Judaeo-Christian tradition, written and oral, canonized or not, factual or folklore, whether restricted to the religious elite or common among the layman. Such intricate awareness is in fact among the fundamental arguments the Quran uses in support of the divine inspiration of the messenger, the gentile, unschooled Arab, a man highly unlikely to have possessed such vast array of information, let alone able to assemble the details in the form of eloquent speech, whose life whether before or after his prophethood, was known and scrutinized from every angle, day and night, by his friends, family and foes.
It is interesting however that we do read in the ahadith of a man appearing out of nowhere on several occasions in the life of the prophet and the community. Including to teach the prophet and his followers, publicly, the daily prayers, as well as to command him and the Muslim soldiers, to besiege the treacherous tribe of Bani Qurayza. These are not trivial issues, whether from the point of view of the religion, or the life of the community, showing that the prophet, although the uncontested leader of his people, was not acting from his own accord in essential matters. The ahadith relate several other encounters with the same man, unknown to the closest companions, appearing in unlikely circumstances among the people, then disappearing, and always in slightly different physical shape. He would be identified as the angel Jibril whenever the people inquired to the prophet. This "man" was around the prophet and the community from the very beginning, as the prophet was taught the first revelation, to other instances where the companions witnessed him teaching the Quran to the prophet, to when they saw him visit the prophet when he became sick. In terms of resemblance, the prophet likened him to a companion named Dihya. Someone else once confused him with Dihya too. Dihya as a side note, was not influential in the community in any way, even after the prophet's death did not attain to any leading position, neither was he among the closest companions whose decisions were considered by the prophet, nor was he knowledgeable so as to contribute to the Quran. Despite this closeness of interaction, none among the community was able to get a hold of the mysterious visitor, or could interact with him once the purposes of his visits were over. Medina's population at the time was around 20.000, the type of social life was very open and each individual had a very large network of friends and kinsfolk. It would have been impossible for this man to escape the people's grasp, let alone the numerous hypocrites who were always on the lookout to discredit the prophet, had he been known or been living in or anywhere near Medina. Other appearances were observed during battles, with men dressed as the occasional visitor of the prophet was
"Narrated Sa`d: On the day of the battle of Uhud, on the right and on the left of the Prophet were two men wearing white clothes, and I had neither seen them before, nor did I see them afterwards".
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Abu Bakr's collection, as stated earlier was assembled on loose parchments. It was not compiled in book form and reproduced, up to the time of Uthman. It was meant for safekeeping so as to ensure the availability of a complete and approved written testimony to the Quran. Also, AbuBakr's collection was not meant as a standard by which people should refer to in their recital. And so, until the time of Uthman, people kept using their personal codices and ways of recital. Under Abu Bakr' caliphate, Muslim land had not yet expanded beyond the Peninsula, a territory where people were already familiar with the proper reading and recitation of the Quran. However with the rapid expansions to new lands and people under Umar then Uthman, the complete Uthmanic text, properly ordered and rewritten according to the new rasm, was sent to various provinces along with a memorizer to demonstrate the proper reading. Uthman did so under his caliphate upon receipt of the very first report about variant recitations in the provinces.
The differences were dialectical and in the manners of vocalization; and this is what the reporter, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who was sent on a campaign to Azerbaidjan had noticed on his return march. Among the revisionist western scholarship, some have conveniently rejected that account in favor of one stating that the difference noticed by Hudhayfa was one where 2 groups of men recited 2:196 with 1 different word lilbayt instead of lillah. Besides the fact that such typical grasping at a handful of convenient accounts and dismissing the mass of traditional literature that isnt self-serving, the revisionists fail to undermine the Quran's preservation. That account doesnt entail generalized corruption and in fact reinforces the Muslim position. The preservation of the Quran is due to the massive consensus of the community, not on the opinion of a few individuals. This is because humans are prone to error, such as the group of people in the report about 2:196. The error was detected, precisely because there was consensus as to the correct form of the Quran, and a plan to tacle the issue, avoid it taking greater proportions, was put in place the same year.
It is to be noted, recital variations had already been detected and addressed by the previous caliph who had rebuked ibn Masud for accepting to teach in the Hudhail dialect to accomodate some people of Iraq. But by Uthman's time, the variations were more widespread given the expansion of the Muslim empire. Again, this process of proper Quranic education and memorization of the far provinces had already started under Umar the previous caliph who had been entrusted with Abubakr's compilation. Umar sent teachers that established schools in Kufa, Basra, Syria out of which came 100s of students and future teachers would come out from.
The reason that prompted Uthman's Quran project, and Abubakr's before him, is thus very different than having to put a canon together from among conflicting traditions each claiming to be the divine truth. This was the case with Christianity's competing sects like the Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, proto-orthodox (named as such because they were the ones that eventually were adopted by the state) each insisting that they correctly upheld the teachings of Jesus. All were in competition to become the rightful, offically endorsed version.
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Although Hafs was rejected as a hadith narrator, a science that is completely unrelated to the art of Quran recitation or capacity to memorize, he was however never questioned in the field of recitation itself, neither by those who deemed him untrustworthy in hadith nor by his fellow students. As to the fact that Hafs would borrow books to copy them without returning them, with the only specific case mentionned being a book from his contemporary student colleague Shu'bah, what is important to mention firstly is that only Shu'bah made that claim, which is why no other explicit example of borrowing and not returning exists.
Second, it was nothing strange and in fact the norm back then for even powerful narrators to borrow eachothers' books and copy the narrations they contained into their hadith collection. As to not returning Shu'bah's book, this could have been due to many things other than "stealing". Nobody ever accused Hafs in that context of being a book thief!
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Allah has repeatedly pledged throughout the Quran that He will structure and compile, explain and protect the Quran from falsehood
15:9"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it".
This verse comes in answer to the prophet's opponents, trying to discredit him with taunts and sarcasms. It tells them this reminder is divinely sent, meaning not the product of the person they are objecting to. So in reality they are opposing God who sent it. And even if they try to oppose the One who sent it, the only way being to tamper or destroy His communications, then the verse tells them in the form of a strong affirmation, this revelation will remain firmly guarded.
As a side note, "the reminder/al dhikr" is a general word that may be used to anything that serves the function of reminding. This reminding can be done in many ways, including orally. It is the context that defines what is meant by it. In 15:9 above it means the Quran, whether written or recited from memory. The pledge of protection despite the people's opposition to Muhammad refers only to the Quran in that passage.
In 16:43, the reminder/al dhikr refers to whatever served the function of reminding prior to the Quran, and this includes both written and oral traditions of the Jews and Christians, in totality. In 21:105 the dhikr still refers to whatever served the function of reminding prior to the Quran, but this time, to the exclusion of certain Judeo-Christian scriptures, namely the Psalms and all that came after it. Dhikr here refers to what was divinely inspired prior to the Psalms of David.
In 40:53-4 the dhikr/the reminder is in reference to what served as a reminder of the truth to the Israelites only, and which they inherited from Moses. This means the Torah exclusively. All these verse prove that the generic word dhikr/reminder is flexible and its application depends on the context of its use; it does not mean the same thing everytime it appears, and not everything that the Quran says about it in a context, applies to another context.
Just as when it refers to both the Quran and the Torah with the general word "writing/kitab" doesnt mean they are one and the same writing, or that what it says in the context of the writing being the Quran, also applies to the Torah because it is also called a writing in another passage. The same goes for other dual applications of general words to both the Quran and previous scriptures, such as criterion, guidance, light etc.
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
The "7 ahruf" which the prophet is reported to have requested from Gabriel is an enigmatic issue upon which very little is known out of all the corpus of reliable hadith. The only description of these 7 ahruf given by the prophet is that it would serve the purpose of accommodating people of different levels of literacy and fluency of the language, in their recital of the Quran. The Muslim scholars did not differ on the purpose of the ahruf but over how they achieved that purpose.
Most of the early opinions, as alluded to by Al Suyuti in his al Itqan are repetitive and overlap. He speaks of around 40 opinions without quoting them all. What he quotes can be summed up as follows.
- The 7 ahruf are ambiguous due to the word harf having different lexical meanings (a letter of the alphabet, a word, a meaning, or a way). - Harf means a way of pronunciation. - The 7 ahruf indicate seven meanings - others say 7 ways of recitation using synonyms - or 7 of the most eloquent dialects of the Arabs. - Finally the view of Ibn Qutayba who said the 7 ahruf allowed a range of flexibility in the reading and sometimes the text itself; vocalizations that may or may not change the meaning of a word, letter alterations that may or may not change the meaning and/or the consonantal outline of a word, variations in word orders.
Anyone arguing for a late invention of the 7 ahruf is ignorant of the reality of 7th century Arabia. Arabs were mostly illiterate, with various pronunciations or dialects. It would have been impossible for them to abandon their own dialects and ways of recitation all at once. This means the phenomenon of various modes must have occured in the prophet's life The 7 revealed ahruf are what allowed the oral tradition to be fluid prior to the fixation of the text under Uthman, but without that fluidity stepping outside the limits of divine revelation.
As appropriately noted by professor Déroche
"as long as the prophet was present to validate or not a recitation of one of the companions, the fluidity of the revelation could be preserved without difficulty".
The reported variants attributed to the close companions of the prophet were undoubtedly approved by him.
The scholarly opinions quoted earlier as to the precise nature of the 7 ahruf, all have their strengths and weaknesses, examples and counterexamples. The common denominator is that they are modes, that allow linguistic variations in the manner of reciting the Quran. One mode could allow for more than one recitation. For example if the mode in question is about using synonyms, then one word could be read in more than one way. The recitations resulting from these 7 ahruf are thus generally accepted as 10, going back to the prophet, transmitted through multiple independent channels. If these reciting methods were only reported by a few or single individual on any level of the chain, they were termed shaadh/anomalous. If only a taabi'i would report such readings, they would equally be termed shaadh. Jalal al Din al Bulqini classified the reading of the taabi'i Saeed ibn Jubayr as shaadh. That is why we do not find his reading of 18:79-80 for instance in the canon, nor through any other channel. As a side note in regards to this category of qiraat, they are not completely different qiraat, they in fact overlap with the mutawaatir 10 in the vast majority, just as the mutawaatir overlap among eachother except for a tiny number of words.
Among those that reported the isnad of each reading is ibn Hazm al andalusi. Imam Jazari observed in an-Nashar that:
"Indeed some of the latter scholars had imposed Tawatir on the condition of authenticity of a Qira'ah, they were not only satisfied with authenticity, but believed that Quran could not be confirmed unless with Tawatir and any narration that falls into Ahaad's category could not be confirmed as Quran".
These same people, such as al Jazari or al Shaatibi that clearly attest to the mass transmission of every authentic qira'a, they had limited themselves to a chain of single individuals going to the prophet. This was done for brievty's sake, tracing each reading through notable names.
Recent people with poor knowledge of these well established and extensive scholarly works on the topic, have taken these single reports as proof against the mass transmission of the qiraa'at. This of course is an absurdity. Had it been the case, there would not have been varying levels of authenticity among the qiraa'at, as stated with the shaadh qiraa'at. Also, it is obvious that when people like ibn Masud, who was among the many that learned his reading from the prophet, when he (ibn Masud) moved to Kufa where he taught Aasim who then taught Hafs, the most popular reading today, Aasim in Kufa certainly was not the only one learning from ibn Masud. Ibn Masud had a massive popularity in that city and the people adopted his reading in defiance of the caliphate whose official reading was another authentic one.
Among sunni jurists, Hanbali al-Tufi (d. 716 H) was the one most skeptical in terms of whether the major qiraat were traceable through tawatur to the prophet. But he never denied the Tawatur of the recitations from their eponymous readers. He even criticized those who thought his position implied non-tawatur of the Quran. He notes that this is not the case, because the Quran is not identical with qiraat, and there is consensus on the tawatur of the Quran.
As a side note, ibn Mujahid compiled a popular book in which he only listed 7 readings, which later led to some thinking that the readings were restricted to only 7. The famous qiraat scholar Abu Shamah (665/1267) said
"No one thinks that these seven readings are what is meant in the hadith except the ignorant".
Ibn Mujahid simply wanted to list those he deemed more popular because of the major cities wherein they were most famous, such as Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Basra and Damascus. As noted by ibn Atiyyah, the teachers of these 7 readings used their ijtihad, or religious jurisprudence, to select which among the already existing variants were in conformity with the criteria of authenticity; these being, agreement with the grammar and the Uthmanic recension. The scholars have added 3 other readings on top of those 7, from among the known variants. These 3 additional readings are mutawaatir like the 7, and, similarly, conform to grammar rules and to Uthman's mushaf. Some have counted more than these 10 but their list was disputed by other scholars in light of the aforementioned criteria of authenticity.
Also, anyone can make recital mistakes due to one's own peculiar way of pronouncing certain words and letters. Then transmit those errors to others. This has no bearing on the issue of Quran authenticity unless one can prove that these errors became widespread until assimilated in the approved readings. Or that there was resistance when these errors were pointed and declared inauthentic.
Another thing to note is that ibn Mujahid was not the first to write a book on qira'at. The first compiler of qira'at was Abu Ubayy Qasim ibn Salam, who collected 25 in total, including those famous 7. Then Ahmad bn Jubair al-kufi wrote on only five Qira'at, selecting one reader from each city. Then Ismail ibn Ishaq with his 20 authoritative readers, including the 7 famous ones. At-Tabari recorded 20 Qira'at in his Al-Jami'u fil Qira'at. Tabari affirms the divinity of the qiraat. When discussing 2 variant readings of 37:12, he proposes that multiple readings were miraculously dictated to the Prophet simultaneously, just as has been known in the famous hadith from Hisham.
Then al-Dujuni talked about 11 readers.
Finally came Ibn Mujahid and was the first to restrict his work on the famous 7. We find that the Quran commentators were the ones to report as many readings as they could, regardless of authenticity criteria. Their objective was to give all possible nuances of understanding to certain Quran passages. In addition, several writers of the first two Hijri centuries are mentioned as having produced books on qiraat, though their works did not survive. Among them: Yahia ibn Ya'mur (d. 90 H), Aban ibn Taghlib (d. 141 H), Muqatil ibn Sulayman (d. 150 H), Abu Amr ibn al-'Ala (d. 154 H), Za'idah ibn Qudāmah al-Thaqafī (d. 161 H) and al-Akhfash al-Akbar (d. 177 H).
Uthman's compilation was thus written, as alluded to earlier, in a particular rasm (orthography) which became known as al-rasm al-Uthmani. That orthography included addition, deletion and substitution of letters to make the text easier to read. That rasm made it possible from the beginning for some words to be read in more than one authenticated qiraat/readings/recitations method, going back with strong certainty to the prophet
“I heard Hisham ibn Hakim ibn Hizam reciting Surat al-Furqan (Sura 25) differently from me, and it was the Messenger of Allah who had recited it to me. I was about to rush up to him but I granted him a respite until he had finished his prayer. Then I grabbed him by his cloak and took him to the Messenger of Allah and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I heard this man reciting Surat al-Furqan differently from the way you recited it to me.’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Let him go.’ Then he said, ‘Recite, Hisham,’ and Hisham recited as I had heard him recite. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘It was sent down like that.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite’ and I recited the sura, and he said, ‘It was sent down like that. This Qur’an was sent down in seven ways, so recite from it whatever is easy for you.’ ”.
This undisputed hadith shows 3 major points; the Quran as we have it today, along with its authentically reported variations is preserved just as it was revealed. The second point is that no companion, including Umar ibn al khattab, the 2nd Caliph, quoted above, mastered all the qiraat/recitation types at once. The final point is that the companions were on the lookout for the slightest unapproved variant in recital.
What had happened to Umar as he came across a mode of recitation other than his for the first time, had also occurred to Ubayy ibn Kaab
"I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur'in) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah's Messenger and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Messenger of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation)".
We see again the same pattern of the close companions being on high alert at all moments to the matter of the transmission and preservation of the Quran. The matter was so dear to Ubayy that
"there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance".
Although Ubayy did not verbally express his thoughts, the prophet felt his unease
"he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear".
The prophet engaged him physically so as to bring him out of his state of confusion and make him focus on what he was about to tell him
"He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur'an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession)".
This state of momentary doubt is something that might affect any believer of the highest degree, even in the presence of a prophet. It is interesting that Christian critics bring this minor issue up of Ubayy's inner feelings as if it is anything similar to what is depicted in their own books; Peter, the pillar of the church and chief of the apostles forcefully denied Jesus after his arrest. Prior to that, he did Satan's work by being a "stumbling block" to Jesus. Judas explicitly gave Jesus up to the authorities. Eventually all of the close circle "forsook him, and fled".
Another instance involving Umar is when he heard a variant from someone who had studied under Ubay ibn Kaab. He immediately took the man to Ubay for confirmation and even made Ubay testify three times that the variant had come from the prophet, prior to letting the man go. It has also been reported that Ubay read 48:26 with the addition
"and if you had felt disdain like they felt, the masjid e haram would have been corrupted".
Umar was unaware of that reading and again objected, showing once more how the companions never felt complacent in the preservation of their sacred scripture. Umar did not simply let that pass based on the precedent of their being variants he did not know that proved to be true. He went and asked for the testimony of Zayd ibn Thabit, who sided with him. But upon Ubay's insistence, Umar let him read as he pleased, based on his virtues and trustworthiness in the transmission of the Quran (Al Haakim, Al Mustadrak alal sahihayn). What is clear however is that Ubay did not transmit this reading to his students, because it was an exegetical variant, as seen earlier, approved by the prophet but aimed at helping the companion personally in his own understanding and assimilation of the text. This is supported by 2 important points; Umar was not aware of that recitation although he heard this sura directly from the Prophet on the occasion of Hudaybiyya. And second Ubay's reading through Abu Jaafar, Ibn Kathir, and Abu Amr, does not report this addition (Kitab al Mabani, Muqaddimatan 91-93).
There is a reverse case with Umar's reading of 62:9 being dropped in favor of Ubay's. This shows that the rule in regards to readings that changed the structure of a word or verse, was to adopt the consensus reading, and that the companions knew that the permissions the prophet had given them in that regard were meant for their personal use. An explicit example is Bukhari's report of ibn Abbas' reading of 26:214. He is sometimes quoted reciting it with additional words and at other times he recites it exactly as is found in the Uthmanic recension. This is because he was aware the different reading was meant for his personal assimilation and elaboration over the text, and that the consensus was to read it according to what has come down to us, and as massively reported through multiple chains.
And if the companions themselves were not aware of every aspect of all readings approved by the prophet, then it is only natural that their students would sometimes encounter the same problem
"The companions of `Abdullah (bin Mas`ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as `Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear `Abdullah bin Mas`ud reciting Surat Al-
Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited: 'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:-- 'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow them."
Both Alqama and Abu Darda recited 92:3 without "ma khalaqa", as we find in today's Quran. Alqama heard it from his master ibn Masud and Abu Darda confirmed the authenticity of that variant as coming from the prophet. But other readers recited differently, according to what their own masters and companions of the prophet taught them, meaning without those leniencies recited by the prophet to his companions. Since the prophet this time was not present to arbitrate, each side remained on a reading traced to the prophet. However the reading of ibn Mas'ud has reached us today and is called the reading of Shu'ba. Yet we do not find this variant in their recital. This shows that it was eventually dropped in favor of the massive consensus/tawattur, the ultimate criterion of preservation of the Quran. Ibn al Jazari (see his Nashr) was thus completely justified in rejecting that reading of 92:3 based on it being transmitted through ahad/isolated report that contradicts the consensus.
Even Ibn Abbas came across a manuscript thinking the scribe had made an error. These errors, such as 24:27 or 17:23 were simply variants he wasnt aware of. They are all present in today's Quran. When he became aware of the authenticity of these readings, he accepted, them, just as Umar quoted earlier. This is because when ibn Abbas was asked
"Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings (of the Qur'an)".
This declaration is significant because it shows that even in the extreme case where ibn Abbas stuck to an exegetical reading, as is reported concerning 4:24, he still ultimately agreed with the consensus reading that has come down to us.
As to 24:27, Al-Tabari reports ibn Abbas' comment on it.Ibn Abbas first quotes the conventional reading, after which he juxtaposes his own reading, showing what is already known about the 2 words tasta'nisu/tasta'dhinu being near synonyms. This also proves that he had approved the conventional reading. The situation is similar with 17:23. At Tabari quotes a report where Nusayr ibn abi Al Ashaab says that a person was given a mushaf by ibn Abbas that read wassa instead of qada as we have today. At Tabari then quotes another report where the same reading was found in a mushaf with Nusayr, who then said that wassa and qada are near-synonyms. This shows again that those companions whose mushaf diverged from the consensus in near-synonyms, ultimately adopted the majority reading.
It would be very far fetched for the different scribes to have copied the same error in all of Uthman's commissioned compilations. Further there are cases of reported scribal errors which were swiftly corrected by Uthman, during his compilation of the mushaf
"I was with ‘Uthmaan when they were presenting the Mus-hafs to him. He sent me to Ubayy ibn Ka‘b with the shoulder blade of a sheep, on which was written, “lam yatasanna” and “laa tabdeelah lil-khalq” and “fa amhil al-kaafireen”. He called for an ink pot and erased one of the two laams (in the word “lil khalq”) and wrote “li khalq-illah (“in the creation of Allah” – referring to the verse “No change let there be in Khalq¬illâh (i.e. the religion of Allâh)” [ar-Room 30:30]). He erased the word fa amhil and wrote “fa mahhil” (“so give respite” referring to the verse“So give respite to the disbelievers” [at-Taariq 86:17]). And he wrote lam yatasannah (“they show no change”, referring to the verse “they show no change” [al-Baqarah 2:259]); he added the letter haa’ to it".
It was the purpose of Uthman's compilation effort, to integrate as many recitations methods as possible in one universal script. Hence the above cases of correction and discarding any defective script that didnt allow that dynamism. Why would he allow a scribal error in all standardized texts to be disseminated when he went to such length in avoiding precisely that?
There are so many ahadith about the revelation of the Quran in the seven ahruf that Abu Ubayd al Qasim Ibn Sallam (224/838) considered them mutawatir. He rejected only one of those, referring to the seven ahruf as being revealed in seven different meanings. Al Suyuti counted twenty companions among the transmitters of those ahadith. Some of these companions had sometimes several students reporting the hadith from their master. As is the case with Ubay's students, Asim, Humayd or ibn Abi Layla, all considered trustworthy narrators, and earlier sources than even al Zuhri. Same is the case with ibn Masud's student abu al Ahwas whose own students al Sabi'i or abi al Hudayl narrated the hadith on the ahruf. There is a hadith about Uthman asking those present at the mosque of Medina if any of them heard the prophet say
"The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven ahruf".
In response, a huge number of them stood up and testified that they had heard this hadith. Uthman in turn testified with them. That is why the prophet, and the scholars have forbidden to argue on this matter or to favor one harf over another
"Verily this Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven ahruf, in every harf you recite you have done so correctly. So do not argue, since this may lead to kufr".
Those questioning the authenticity of the hadith can only rely on weak and disconnected reports to build a case. For instance the unreliable alternate rendering of the hadith, where Hisham's variant occurs at the beginning of an unspecified chapter. Some recent critics have searched for variant readings at a sura's beginning and found that sura Furqan was recited differently at its beginning, by Abdallah ibn al Zubayr. They thus argue that his brother Urwah, who narrated from al Zuhri, might have initiated the idea of variant readings to vindicate his brother's mushaf. But this variant is attributed to al Zubayr 700 years later by Abu Hayyan, making the connection doubtful, besides the tawaatur of the report as stated earlier.
And important thing to note is that the very acceptance of the 7 ahruf hadith goes against the natural reaction of a scholar. Reported variations in the text or its reading should be dismissed as human errors, especially when the standard text is overwhelmingly available, spread geographically and accepted by all sects. But all the classical scholars accepted the hadith. They already knew about that pre-existing phenomenon, it didnt spring into existence spontaneously but was progressively transmitted from master to student. And even if they wanted to deny that reality, they could not brush off the undeniable authenticity of the hadith. That is why we find no disagreement as to the reality of the 7 ahruf.
And despite this acceptance the Muslim scholars did not question the perfect preservation of the Quran. Not because of a dogmatic position but because of the traditional and empirical evidence. The Quran we read today is slightly different than the one left by the prophet but this does not mean it is not authentic. This goes back to the issue of approved qiraat/readings going back to the prophet. The prophet himself told the Muslims that the Quran can be recited in different ways. The Uthmanic rasm is different in places than the Quran recited by the prophet because Uthman included more than 1 potential Qiraa in his text. And all these potential qiraat he included go back with absolute certainty to the prophet. The issue of Quranic preservation therefore is not affected by whether the Quran we read today is exactly the same as the last recital of the prophet the year he died. These differences, it is to be kept in mind, affect a tiny fraction of the total words of revelation. They have no bearing on the issues of faith unlike variants we see in the history of the Bible, like a variant reading not containing the resurrection tale (codex sinaiticus), Greek quotes of the HB by Paul that change the original Hebrew, or insertions that imply a trinitarian reading of certain passages.
