Once more, there is no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 so no punitive measure can be directed at an apostate neither can he be compelled to go back to Islam or forced to repent solely on the basis of his choice of creed. Per the Quran and as made clear in 4:88-90 quoted earlier, action is to be undertaken against an apostate when he engages in hostile behavior towards Muslims and the Muslim state. Fighting, punishing or killing an apostate has therefore nothing to do with a person's choice of creed but with his behavior towards the Muslims.
The capital punishment solely for renouncing one's religion isnt Quranic, it is a Biblical ruling outlined in Deut13 or Deut17:1-7 and stipulates that all those who are caught enticing others into, or commiting idolatry, are to be put to death, in such a forceful manner that all the inhabitants of the city are to be indiscriminately executed, their livestock and possessions burned and their dwellings razed to the ground.
A demonstration of the law's application, on a large-scale and in a systematic way, directly commanded by God is when thousands of Israelites were executed by their own brethren for having reverted to idol worship during the exodus. This incident is reported in both the Torah and Quran. Further the Biblical law of apostasy is general to all situations. When the Israelite prophets executed apostates and idolaters from among their own, it wasnt in war times where the apostate risked joining enemy ranks or spying on their behalf, or refusing to contribute economically as a full fledged member of a community with his rights and obligations.
Later on in the course of their tumultuous history and as they were adapting the revealed law (of apostasy and other inconvenient and/or difficult laws) to their needs and whims, or their life circumstances, the passing of the death penalty required a much more stringent procedure. It was the case before, during and after the time of Jesus which is why it was rarely if ever applied then, whether by Jews or early followers of Jesus.
This by the way is one of the many points that undermine the crucifixion tale, as will be shown further below.
In Christianity a similar process of reinterpretation occurred as regards the capital punishment for apostasy. Up to the middle ages, whether it was church leaders, popes, thinkers and saints the likes of Thomas Aquinas, all justified and applied whenever they could, based on passages of both the HB/NT, the death penalty to apostates, as well as heretics and open sinners. It was not until Christianity and its church weakened through reforms and secularism that the capital punishment for religious transgressions was abandoned.
The Jews, in the times of Jesus didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses:
-the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.
-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).
Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"
means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted. When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.
-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).
- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned
-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple
So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic comandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? When in Jn18 the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up their irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation.
The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..
Similarly the misquoted reports about Abu Bakr's ridda wars do not come in the context of apostasy.
The people fought against were regarded as Muslims according to many other reports, although a minority had apostised. They were fought for their refusal to pay due government taxes and poor rate, and after they initially and unexpectedly attacked those that sided with Abu Bakr on the issue, and after causing bloodshed among government ranks and attempted to overthrow the first caliph. Prior to giving further details about this event, it is important noting that the Quran sanctions warfare against anyone, including Muslims, who refuse to desist from destructive practices such as riba 2:278-9. The events of the ridda war occured shortly after the prophet's death when many disheartened recent converts apostised and others attempted to reduce their community contributions.
Umar is reported to have pleaded with Abubakr to be more lenient with those that refused paying their dues, which he categorically refused. Clearly the issue was not about spiritual apostasy or else Abubakr would have acceded to Umar's request, accepting that they pay less in exchange of their adherence to the Muslim community.
Abubakr sent them an official letter calling them back to Islam, those very people who were nominal Muslims, but that refused adhering to the laws of the Islamic state. He instructed his emissaries to fight the rebels after they have been informed of their obligations towards the state and have rejected
"(the duties) that are incumbent upon them and [the advantages] that accrue to them, and (the emissary) should take what is [imposed] on them and give them what they are due".
In his letter Abubakr additionally appealed to the prophet's practice in a similar situation. When he was confronted to Muslims who rebelled against the state and refused paying their dues, unjustly taking advantage of the system which others were sacrificing their own wealth and lives to maintain
"he struck whoever turned his back to Him (God) until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly".
Such a behavior is equal to turning one's back to God, as is represented by the state religion. This isnt speaking of simply renouncing the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations.
The rebels of the ridda war launched their assault by night while the majority of the Muslim soldiers were sent on an expedition outside Medina. Abu Bakr fought back with his people and killed those who were involved. It is with such historical and Quranic perspective that the killing of apostates as reported in the history and hadith books should be understood, spiritual apostasy was never the sole charge warranting the death penalty, but rather political apostasy ie socio-political destabilization and conspiracies to commit bloodshed, especially in times of war or other sort of trials that caused the early Muslims to be on high alert against those who wished to overthrown the system.
In addition, some among the early Muslims' enemies pretended converting in attempts to infiltrate the community and harm it through inciting sedition and providing vital information in times of war 3:72,33:60. All governments would punish and sometimes execute foreign spies, double agents, or traitors to an enemy with whom one is at war. These are the people covered in the saying
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
This clearly puts 2 condition for the execution of an individual in war times, leaving the religion combined with separation from the community to join the enemy. Leaving the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations does not warrant the death penalty. This openly declared threat would make the conspirators think twice before engaging in their insidious behavior. All scholars have understood that leaving Islam must be coupled with a will to harm it and its people, to warrant the death penalty. Ibn Taymiyah said
"Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective".
Another typical example is that of Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh who had converted then apostised, joined the enemy side and began undermining the authenticity of the Quran by spreading rumors that he had been forging verses. He in addition incited the opposite party to war. When the Muslim side finally overcame against all odds and his own inciting efforts, his inevitable, legitimate fate was now execution for high treason. This is what governments generally do once a traitor is apprehended, especially when a conflict ends while the person is still among enemy ranks. At that point, ibn Abi Sarh sought Uthman's intercession and came to the prophet to pledge his allegiance. The prophet ignored Uthman's plea twice before finally accepting. The prophet knew that he deserved to be put to death but at the same time, because of the general amnesty he had declared upon Mecca's conquest, he hesitated in the case of Sarh' special case, leaning more towards the capital penalty. By his silence, he left it to the attendance of close followers to do as they liked and as he saw that they leaned the opposite way, he reluctantly validated their judgement and accepted Sarh's pledge.
However and as already shown from the Quran, should one leave Islam peacefully without intending any harm to the community, not combining apostasy with public rejection of the state system, which includes refusal to acquit oneself from fiscal obligations, then the consequences of the sin are left for the Creator to decide in the Hereafter. A case in point is that of a bedouin that apostised though he had accepted Islam, pledging allegiance in front of the prophet the day before. The prophet did not punish him, the most that he did was to ignore him 3 times before stating
"Medina is like a furnace. It expels its impurities and collects what is pure".
The early caliphs followed the same line. Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz did not bother a group of apostates so long as they did not rebel against government laws. It is thus rejection of the religion in a way that threatens the stability of the Islamic system in place that warrants death penalty. These were the cases covered by the prophet's saying
"Whosoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him".
In fact there are explicit reports where the prophet let people leave the community in security following their spiritual apostasy.
His tolerance, patience and forbearance were indiscriminate and touched people from all social spheres, as seen in the previous post
“Do not be mere imitators, treating well only those who treat you well and doing wrong to those who do you wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil” Aisha said "The Messenger of Allah did not take revenge for anything against himself, but if the sacred law of Allah was violated then he would take retribution for the sake of Allah".
This attitude of the prophet, his forbearance was a pattern which remained throughout his 23 years of prophethood, whether at the best or worst moments the community went through. For instance following the defeat at Uhud due to some of the troops breaking up against the prophet's orders, allured by the spoils left behind by the retreating pagan army. The victory was on the Muslim side up to that point, after which the opponents took the upper hand. Even in such situations, where the lack of discipline of some, brought death and defeat on the nascent community, the prophet did not behave as would have been expected from a field commander and nation leader. He did not judge, condemn or punish the guilty and deserters.
3:159-161"And it was by Allah’s grace that you dealt gently with your adherents, for if you had been harsh and hard of heart, they would indeed have broken away from you. Pardon them, then, and pray that they be forgiven. And take counsel with them in all matters of public concern; then, when you have decided upon a course of action, place your trust in Allah, for, of certainty, Allah loves those who place their trust in Him. If Allah supports you, none can ever overcome you; but if He should forsake you, who could support you thenceforth? In Allah, then, let the committed Muslims place their trust. And it is not conceivable that a prophet should deceive [in military affairs or in anything else], since he who deceives shall be faced with his deceit on the Day of Resur- rection, when every human being shall be repaid in full for whatever he has done, and none shall be wronged [by any injustice]".
Despite the unsettling situation, he remained a tranquil and friendly administrator, fully involved into improving the society he belonged to. He acknowledged the deficiencies of human nature especially in times of war. At that moment it the prophet had to have a clear mind to understand the individual circumstances that led these first-time offenders to do what they did. He had to think with his heart, not to react in proportion to the adversity that resulted from their lethal mistakes
9:128"Indeed, there has come unto you an Apostle from within yourselves: heavily weighs upon him [the thought] that you might suffer [in the life to come], full of concern for you [is he, and] full of compassion and mercy toward the committed Muslims".
That is why one only finds the kind of reports as those concerning Asma bint Marwan who wrote poems that targeted the prophet personally, among the weak and discarded narrations.
As a prophet of God and ruler, he was nevertheless not one to adopt the type of passivity that would result in the merciless becoming brazen and taking advantage of any apparent weakness. From that perspective, we can begin to understand why he sanctioned the execution of some people, and tactically fought others, though he may have wished that this could have been avoided.
An example to corroborate would be that of Kaab ibn Ashraf. Following the Muslim victory of Badr, the idolators and the Jews of Medina felt that their political position was greatly diminished. Only 2 years after his migration, the Prophet of God had managed to break the traditional pattern of power distribution in the desert. The enemies of Islam would meet clandestinely and encourage the composition and recitation of divisive poetry. Kaab ibn Ashraf, a Jewish chieftain of Banu Nadhir, was a poet of considerable fame and he used to recite in the gatherings fiery poems inciting the people to rise up against Islam. This was a clear breeching of the Medina covenant of peace with the Muslims, non partisanship which eachother's enemies. ibn Ashraf's particularity as compared to the other non Muslims and hypocrites that secretly disliked Islam and conspired against it, is that he openly joined the Meccan ranks with whom the community was at war, becoming a propaganda tool that composed eulogies mourning the Meccan chiefs slain in the battle of Badr and defamed Muslim women. The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularly the 2nd one. The chief propagandists among the Nazis were regarded as top priority targets by Western authorities. The issue here is thus not that of low-level disparaging comments and mockeries, rather the kind of criticism with deadly ramifications. The Quran and hadith contain many instances of the prophet and the Muslims being the targets of mockery and ridicule, both in times of political weakness and strength, yet neither responded in kind nor retaliated violently. The Quran for instance in sura tawba relates how the Medina hypocrites would engage in injurious talk about the prophet, and this at a time where the Muslim community had become powerful. The only response they got from the prophet was that he socially ostracized them, refusing their charity donations, and leaving their fate to Allah in the Hereafter
9:66"If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals".
He would even pray for the forgiveness of some of them, only to be rebuked by Allah for his undeserving empathy 9:80,63:6. Even so, the Quran would repeatedly call them to repent, and that God may show them mercy
33:24"That Allah may reward the truthful for their truth and punish the hypocrites if He wills or accept their repentance. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful".
As to Kaab, his animosity was such that it is said the verse 4:51 speaking of Jews believing in idols alludes to him, when he accompanied a delegation from Medina to Mecca in search of an alliance against the Muslims, and publicly bowed to the idols to reassure the suspecting Quraysh
"Your are people of Scripture and Muhammad has a Scripture and we are not completely sure that this is a scheme that you devised. So if you want us to go along with you, you have to prostrate to these two idols and believe in them".
But being a coward he never attended the battles himself, preferring to plot and incite behind closed doors. His role in galvanizing the Quraysh prior to the battle of Uhud is well known, his wife herself is reported to have warned him that his life was at threat because of his actions. Although the prophet said that Kaab was deserving of being put to death since he should be treated as a combatant, he nevertheless did not plan the execution. It is to be noted that any modern government seeking to preserve the survival of its people in times of war, would look to target specific opponents whose death would have a more significant impact in the long-run in terms of avoiding further bloodshed. He was thus incited out of his hiding place and killed, which successfully prevented an all out war with the Bani Nadir. Other opinions say his assassination occurred after the battle of Uhud in response to an attempted murder of the prophet.
The critics of Islam wont find the kind of cold blooded, arbitrary and ruthless assassinations they try hard to attribute to the prophet and even if they succeed, which they wont, then it still takes nothing away from Muhammad's claim to prophethood, judging by the standards of the true prophets of the Bible, including David who assassinated an innocent man for the sole purpose of marrying his wife and yet it did not diminish an iota from his legitimacy as a prophet.
The fact is that so many factors in the prophet's life went against displaying any sort of positivity and mercy that one can only conclude that he had been preserved and guided by the Almighty from turning into an evil despot; never knew his father, hardly enjoyed the compassion of his mother, lost his grandfather, and then his uncle and dearest wife simultaneously, witnessed every single one of his children die save for one, who was treated like a menace and fugitive after decades of building a flawless reputation among his people, on top of that physically abused until he would faint, starved for years by his own people, and faced countless campaigns of character assassination, directed towards him and his household, driven out of his home, unto a foreign town only to find hypocrites there awaiting every opportunity to betray him, then watching assassination attempts against his life unfold regularly, as well as the murder and mutilation of his relatives and companions. Who could in such circumstances persevere and rise beyond negativity, displaying mercy, justice and empathy besides one divinely guided?
This is why we find in this Quran, and as embodied by the prophet, that it calls Muslims to treating others, whether close or far "neighbors", from one's own people or not, as they themselves would like to be treated. It was a way of life of the prophet who taught the people the general axiom that
"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind".
Whenever the Quran encourages fair treatment, it does so by instilling empathy
4:9"Let those who would fear for the future of their own helpless children, if they were to die, show the same concern for orphans, let them be mindful of God and speak out for justice".
That type of imaginative role-reversal is a recurrent theme 4:36,42:23,83:1-6. Treating others even better than what is expected towards one's self, opens the possibility to create a positive change even in one's enemy 41:34,59:9. This shows how altruism in the Quran, although seemingly over empathetic, actually remains pragmatic by extending fair treatment even to one's enemies in certain cases. The prophet said
"Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated".
In another narration of the prophet, those who are able to show such selflessness are described as neither belonging to the prophets or martyrs, but the prophets and martyrs will envy them due to their status on the Day of Resurrection
"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".
Many times the Quran starts or ends a passage about belief in the One God, with a statement about just dealings between men, always showing how faith and righteousness are inevitably linked to social interractions.
This selflessness thus negates any expections and favor in return while lending a helpful ear to any type of "asker" 74:6,93:10. This is because everyone in this world may be subject to physical, spiritual or intellectual need.
This comprehensive attitude enjoined in the Quran, along with other such directives, takes the principle of the "golden rule" to new heights and should be labelled the "diamond rule".
Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of conveniency, given the frequent interaction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them.
They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return
76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".
What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.
So, even though the Quran does not pronounce an abstract concept like to “love your neighbour”, it does however articulate its reality and applications in a much more comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice.
In a hadith, the prophet describes how the angel Jibril admonished him for the sake of the neighbours
"Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, "Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"
Here is an example to corroborate. Under Uthman's caliphate, a man named Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers deeply resented Uthman, favoring Ali instead whom they saw as a semi divine figure more eligible to be caliph. Their over exaltation of Ali took them outside the fold of Islam, making them apostates. Their true aim by feinting conversion was to spread political and social discord to destabilize the caliphate. They planned on capturing and killing Uthman should he refuse stepping down, and Uthman was eventually murdered.
Ali eventually arrested them, exiled some of them and executed others. The fact some were exiled shows that although they were all considered apostates, they did not all qualify for the death penalty.
The executions were not motivated by choice of creed, which isnt an endorsed practice by the Quran, but rather for the capital offense of fasad fil ard, which per the Quran warrants the death penalty.
Although the brief and most authentic reports do not clearly say how this was done, some say that they were first burned then thrown into a ditch while others say they were first beheaded then had their lifeless bodies burnt. In both possible cases, Ali had done something which the prophet forbade;
- the first potential misdeed was execution by fire. It is reported
"When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them".
In another report
"We were with the Prophet and we passed by a colony of ants which had been burned, and the Prophet became angry and said, ‘It is not fitting for any man to punish with the punishment of Allah.”
- the second potential misdeed was mutilation of lifeless bodies. It is reported
"The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.”
The traditions explain that this instruction is rooted in a Quranic verse
16:126"And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient".
This verse is said to have been revealed after the prophet had seen the violent manner in which his uncle Hamza's dead body had been ripped open and then threatened
"Never yet have i felt more anger than now i feel; and when next time God gives me victory over Quraysh, i will mutilate thirty of their dead".
This emotional, on the spot declaration was never fulfilled, and the prophet in addition forbade mutilation as shown above, in obedience to the Quranic directive. Even in warfare, killing must be swift, without recourse to inefficient weapons that cause unnecessary suffering
"The Prophet forbade the throwing of stones (with the thumb and the index or middle finger), and said "It neither hunts a game nor kills (or hurts) an enemy, but it gouges out an eye or breaks a tooth".
When ibn Abbas learned of what Ali had done (either burning or mutilating), he publicly rebuked him by appealing to the prophetic sunna mentioned above, which embarrassed Ali, hence his first reaction
"Wayh Ibn Abbas!".
Ali either knew about the prophet's commands but let his emotions overcome him in the execution of the right course, or had forgotten them. So he admitted his error and praised ibn Abbas for speaking the truth
"When ‘Ali was informed about it he said: How truly ibn Abbas said!"
18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing"
When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion
"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.
Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained
"the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.
Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishment or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishment for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentance if it is sincere 3:86-89 and not followed by constant periods of disbelief then belief 4:137.
As reported by ibn Abbas
"A man from among the Ansar accepted Islam, then he apostatized and went back to Shirk. Then he regretted that, and sent word to his people (saying): 'Ask the Messenger of Allah [SAW], is there any repentance for me?' His people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and said: 'So and so regrets (what he did), and he has told us to ask you if there is any repentance for him?' Then the Verses: 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief up to His saying: Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful' was revealed. So he sent word to him, and he accepted Islam."
Nowhere does the Quran say a person must be punished or killed solely for the act of apostasy and all it mentions is that apostates shall face a terrible punishment in the Hereafter. This of course excludes those who apostize unwillingly, who are
3:86-91,16:106"compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith".
Such a person is compelled to renounce faith with his lips due to imminent danger on his life while he remains a firm believer in his heart. This is what is often referred to as taqiya. The Quran doesnt condone lying, rather commands to uphold one's pledges, to judge with equity, to speak justly, kindly, with integrity, without corruption, with the outward locution corresponding to the intent
4:5-9,135,6:152,2:83,235,3:32,70"O you who believe! Reverence God and speak justly".
It is further to be noted here, that although martyrdom in the cause of faith is highly meritorious, still the Quran absolves those who sincerely, not out of lack of faith, cannot go to such an extent because
2:233"no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity".
Saving life takes precedence over following the law. That is why a Muslim may eat pork if facing starvation. Exactly what Jesus taught in the Gospels when he transgressed the sabbath by citing David's example.
Punishment in the hereafter for the sin of apostasy is therefore solely the lot of the one who willingly, without any compulsion renounces Faith and:
"opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement".
Severing of social ties must be made with apostates who were former hypocrites, especially in the context of war as in the verses that will be quoted, since these former Muslims used to hide their hatred and enmity from other Muslims, and now openly declare it, even striving to make them leave their religion
4:88-89"What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned?..They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike".
They are therefore to be cut off from the community to avoid the spread of their mischief
4:89"take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes)/hajiru in Allah's way".
Ties with them can only be restaured when they decisively return to Islam (as indicated by the clause "fi sabilillah/for Allah's sake") and prove their faith to the rest of the community through difficult sacrifices such as leaving their homes and doing hijra in Allah's way, forsaking the domain of evil for an environement where they can practice their faith without restrictions, as the true believers were doing. If they do not do so then their expression of Islam is only for the purpose of spying and destruction, serving the purpose of those with whom Muslims are at war. In this case
4:89"if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper".
They must be executed because of their open and secret hostile activities. However if those apostates refuse to flee their homes in Allah's way but nevertheless end the threat from within the community, by migrating for
4:90"a people between whom and you there is an alliance"
or who decide to remain within the Muslim community but have decisively abandonned all hostilities
4:90"who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people..withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them".
This Quranic passage establishes the social ruling as regards apostasy. The Quran frames it exclusively in the context of war, which is also the historical context in which the early scholars of Islam discussed the law of apostasy. That is why neither the Quran nor the scholars impose a punishement solely for the act of apostasy, but when it is coupled with hostile activity, verbal or physical.
Ridda is the word used in reference to those who engage in this multifaceted behavior. This historical perspective is often missed, disregarded or obscured whenever critics quote a saying from the prophet on apostasy, or the rulings of the fuqaha'. One can now understand the words of the prophet
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
Here, the apostate is to be killed if he in addition severes all ties with the community. In those days, this amounted to joining enemy ranks. If the apostate remains in the community he is left unharmed. We thus see the prophetic practice in clear congruence with the aforementionned Quranic passage.
However even in times of peace, execution of an apostate is sometimes justified. In an Islamic state, Islam itself is what constitutes and legislates life on every level; administrative, economic, social etc. For a Muslim citizen to abandon Islam means to reject the law of the land. One cannot at the same time pledge to abide by those rules while rejecting the essence of the legislative authority, which is the Quran and the prophetic sunna. The entire system derives from these 2 pillars, and new laws are continuously formulated based on them. This constitutes a destabilising factor on all levels of society; how can a government endure if people reject a system unanimously adopted by the community? Except under a tyranny, such an attitude is unjustifiable and is an existential threat to the state. That is why the jurists have legislated for the threat to be cut off from its onset, before it becomes a movement. The apostate on the other hand is free to leave the land and reside outside Islamic jurisdiction, or remain in it without making his apostasy public. But if he makes the apostasy and rejection of the system public, remains in Muslim land, he becomes de facto an outlaw and a destabilising factor within society. Even if it is for the sake of converting to one of the non-Muslim groups of the Islamic land, the apostate still is guilty of rejecting the legislative authority. The non-Muslim groups on the other hand, pre-existed the Islamic state until it expanded to their lands. They never at any point rejected the legislative authority, but instead embraced it, along with the freedom of religion it grants them.
I will address 3 issues brought up, all related to supposed criticism being disallowed in Islam or against the prophet, depicted as a merciless tyrant by these shameless critics, as well as stories they tirelessly bring up of killing some innocents poets and critics.
The story of the killing of the poetess Asma bint Marwan, although tirelessly picked up and repeated by Islam's critics has no ground to stand on, hence its rejection by the scholars. Here is how this unprobable story goes. The killing was supposedly done by night, in her home, by Umayr Ibn Adi who was blind at the time and who in addition was Asma's ex-husband, meaning there could be private personal reasons for her murder.
This blind ex-husband was able to go in by night without getting noticed while coming in, killing her and getting out. Besides the unreliable matn/content it is also rejected due to its isnad containing a hadith forgerer at its source. Similarily the alleged killing of some 120year old Jewish man named Abu Afak for his verbal abuse of the prophet, instigating people to war and to kill him personally (al-Zarqani, ibn Kathir), is considered of no basis by hadith scientists.
Again, no isnad at all, especially in the particular bit where the prophet allegedly said
"Who would rid me of this pestilent fellow?"
Neither Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, nor Al-Waqidi or ibn Sad have given the isnad for it. As to the ex-Muslim Ibn Khatal who had killed a Muslim soldier, and his two singing girls, the account of their killing is only found in ibn Ishaq, with a weak transmission chain, and there are highly reliable ahadith on the prophet forbidding the killing of women, children and elderly. He is for instance described as asking for the community's gathering upon hearing of a slave woman's murder. Apparently the death of a slave woman was important enough so that the prophet Muhammad convened the whole community to deliberate on the case. How is justice brought about when a slave dies after some time following a severe beating from his master Ex21:20-1?
"he assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allaah the man who did this to stand up.” The blind man stood up and came through the people, trembling, and he came and sat before the Prophet".
Notice the perpetrator's nervousness, knowing that such a behavior has always been disapproved by the prophet. In Islamic law, the victim's family is entitled to request either the execution of the criminal or monetary compensation. In this case the slave-woman's family were 2 underaged children and the murderer himself. Neither the minors nor their father were in this case eligible to request compensation and neither would the father's execution by the state constitute a fair decision in relation to the children who would then become orphans.
In light of these details and others which the hadith doesnt give fully, the prophet ruled that no blood money will be given in that case, the father will be indirectly paying anyway as he is bound to provide for his children (whom he affectionately referred to as his pearls). The hadith is also unspecific on whether or not a penalty was later imposed on the murderer, and neither does it indicate that killing for verbally abusing the prophet is justifiable in all circumstances.
Another common example is that of Ka'ab ibn Ashraf. He was a Jewish chieftain of Banu Nadhir, a poet of considerable fame who used to recite in the gatherings fiery poems inciting the people to rise up against Islam. This was a clear breeching of the Medina covenant of peace with the Muslims, non partisanship which eachother's enemies. ibn Ashraf's particularity as compared to the other non Muslims and hypocrites that secretly disliked Islam and conspired against it, is that he openly joined the Meccan ranks with whom the community was at war, becoming a propaganda tool that composed eulogies mourning the Meccan chiefs slain in the battle of Badr and defamed Muslim women.
The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularly the 2nd one. The chief propagandists among the Nazis were regarded as top priority targets by Western authorities. The issue here is thus not that of low-level disparaging comments and mockeries, rather the kind of criticism with deadly ramifications. The Quran and hadith contain many instances of the prophet and the Muslims being the targets of mockery and ridicule, both in times of political weakness and strength, yet neither responded in kind nor retaliated violently. The Quran for instance in sura tawba relates how the Medina hypocrites would engage in injurious talk about the prophet, and this at a time where the Muslim community had become powerful. The only response they got from the prophet was that he socially ostracized them, refusing their charity donations, and leaving their fate to Allah in the Hereafter
9:66"If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals".
As to Kaab, his animosity was such that it is said the verse 4:51 speaking of Jews believing in idols alludes to him, when he accompanied a delegation from Medina to Mecca in search of an alliance against the Muslims, and publicly bowed to the idols to reassure the suspecting Quraysh
"Your are people of Scripture and Muhammad has a Scripture and we are not completely sure that this is a scheme that you devised. So if you want us to go along with you, you have to prostrate to these two idols and believe in them".
But being a coward he never attended the battles himself, preferring to plot and incite behind closed doors. His role in galvanizing the Quraysh prior to the battle of Uhud is well known, his wife herself is reported to have warned him that his life was at threat because of his actions. Although the prophet said that Kaab was deserving of being put to death since he should be treated as a combatant, he nevertheless did not plan the execution. It is to be noted that any modern government seeking to preserve the survival of its people in times of war, would look to target specific opponents whose death would have a more significant impact in the long-run in terms of avoiding further bloodshed.
He was thus incited out of his hiding place and killed, which successfully prevented an all out war with the Bani Nadir. Other opinions say his assassination occurred after the battle of Uhud in response to an attempted murder of the prophet.
On the issue of criticism, Islam is realistic and pragmatic. One can only engage in a discussion when the opposite side wants to conduct a constructive dialogue. There are several ways it gives to identify the sincere critic. When the critic's aim is to objectively assess the Islamic arguments, carefully listen and evaluate the Islamic position, instead of shutting his ears or pretending to listen while preparing his counter arguments, telling others to do the same, raising irrelevant objections just for the sake of discrediting, without any solid basis for argument, isolating a word or a sentence from its context, hairsplitting it so as to make it a basis of doubts and accusations, misconstruing words so as to prevent them being properly understood 4:46,40:4-5,56,41:40 then a meaningful discussion can be engaged
16:125"with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".
The prophet's own life and ability to take on criticism is testimony to this. As well, Muslims can freely mingle with kindness and justice with any non-muslims who do not seek to fight Islam, do not opress Muslims unjustly 60:8-9.
Bukhari for example reports an incident where the prophet was disrespected in front of a large gathering. A companion felt so offended that he requested to kill the culprit. The prophet refused, just as he rejected the Muslims' desire to mutilate a captured Quraysh leader following the battle of Badr, Suhayl b. Amr, by uprooting his front teeth
“so that he could never preach against the Messenger”.
Compare this as a side note, to David's unwarranted mutilation of the Phillistines, among a long list of crimes and sins for which he never was reprimanded since in God's eyes only his adulterous behavior was considered sinful 1Kings15:5. The prophet similarily did not allow his followers to assassinate a man that had spoken in favor of uprooting the Muslim leadership shortly after the defeat of Uhud. On another occasion in Medina, Ibn Salool a known hypocrite constantly working to undermine the prophet's authority, rudely cut the prophet as he was preaching to an audience
“Stay in your home. If someone would like to hear your message, they will come to you.”
In another narration,
“Now leave, the smell of your donkey bothers us.”
The Muslims became irate upon hearing these insults, but the Prophet forbade them from retaliating. When he received Urwa b. Mas‘ud as he was still a pagan an representing the enemy side, during the negotiations for a peace treaty, he was physically and verbally abusive but despite the companions threatening him with their weapons, and the fact that some time ago Urwa's tribe, of whom he was the chief, assaulted the prophet, he honored this ambassador’s stay and hosted him for as long as he stayed. There are many other such incidents, like his eloquent answer to a group of Jews' playing on words and saluting him, inside his home, with
"As-Sâmu ‘alayk (Death be upon you)”.
The prophet was at that point in a position of authority in Medina, meaning that just as in our days where verbally assaulting authority figures makes one liable to prosecution, he would surely have been justified in exercizing his judicial authority. He instead answered
“And upon you”.
When Aisha felt compelled to add,
“Death be upon you, along with the curse of Allah and His wrath!”
The prophet admonished her against being vulgar and instead answer this kind of talk gently. It is this same gentleness that made a leading Jewish figure convert. Zayd b. Su‘na was astonished at the prophet's response to his public disrespect, under the false pretext that he had failed paying his debt as agreed. Not only did the prophet hold back his companions from doing any harm to Zayd but added
"O ‘Umar, we do not need this…Go with him, pay off his loan, and give him twenty additional sâ‘ (32 kg) of dates because you frightened him.”
It was that response that convinced Zayd b. Su‘na to embrace Islam. That incident is similar to when a Bedouin to whom the prophet owed a camel was repaid with a better one although he demanded it in an uncivil manner that vexed the Companions. They were again, as in the previous examples about to hurt him before the prophet prevented them. That attitude extended to occasions when even his family members were slandered, such as when a Muslim believed and spread the false rumours of adultery on Aisha's part.
Not only did the Prophet ultimately forgive this man who had slandered his wife, but he even admonished Abu Bakr, Aisha's father from boycotting this man, especially since he was related to Abu Bakr and used to receive charity from him. More astounding is the pardoning of Habbar ibn Al-Aswad who had once caused his daughter Zaynab to fall from her ride as he was pursuing her, inflicted her with injuries that eventually led to her death several years later. All such instances are in conformity with God's injunction to
41:34"repel evil with what is best"
so that eventually one who is viewed as an enemy might become
"as though he was a devoted friend".
Besides his reported prayers even for Abu Jahl's sake at a time when he was among his staunchest opponent, his supplications for Abu Huraira's pagan mother who used to insult the prophet even when the prophet had full power in Medina, on one occasion, the Prophet silently smiled when Abu Bakr refrained from responding to a rude and insulting person. But when Abu Bakr eventually spoke up, the Prophet became angry and left, later telling him that
“An angel was with you, responding on your behalf. But when you said back to him some of what he said, a devil arrived, and it is not for me to sit with devils".
Even when he permitted the killing of Thumama b. Uthal, the chief of Banu Haneefa who had assassinated a number of the Prophet’s Companions, and had even plotted to kill the Prophet himself, yet when he was captured, not only was he given to drink from the prophet's own she-camel but after repeated invitation to Islam and repeated rejection, was eventually set free. He returned to the prophet's mosque and eventually converted, impressed like many others by the prophet and Islam's high morality. He knew he deserved the death penalty, as seen from his own answer
"If you do me a favour, you will do a favour to a grateful person. If you kill me, you will kill a person who has spilt blood. If you want wealth ask and you will get what you will demand"
yet the prophet neither was vengeful, nor wanted favors and much less money from him, despite his influential tribal position. Upon his arrival to Mecca and after an enthusiastic declaration of faith, in his zeal he implicitly answered a questioner that he had always been a Muslim
"When he reached Mecca, somebody said to him: Have you changed your religion? He said: No! I have rather embraced Islam with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)".
The prophet had to temper Thumama's overzealousness later on; when he returned to his tribe and the most influential among the people of Yamama converted after hearing his story. Thumama convinced them to halt all grain supply to the Quraysh. Such a sanction would have been highly effective in draining the Quraysh, but the noble prophet interceded on behalf of those very ones that had starved him and his early companions in a ravine, persuading the people of Yamama to resume trading with Quraysh, preferring to take the harder but nobler route to victory than the faster one at any cost
"The Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Was-Sallam) did not have to choose between two matters, but that he chose the easier of them as long as it was not a wrong action. If it was a wrong action, he was the furthest of people from it".
There are other similar instances of the prophet catching a person red handed trying to murder him, even while easily having power and right to exact revenge, but instead chose forgiveness. It was the case with Fadala b. ‘Umayr after the conquest of Mecca where he had full dominion over the people. I was also the case before, with the Bedouin man (al-Ghawrath b. al-Harith) that sneaked to him while he was asleep following a military expedition. The prophet woke up while he was about to unsheeth his sword and kill him, but calmly reasonned with him at that point and let him go free. After unmasking the Jewess Zaynab b. al-Harith that had given him a poisonned lamb to eat, he refused to kill her and even forgave her.
On his return by night from the expedition of Tabuk and as he was riding his camel on a route passing above a ravine, a group of camel riders came fast in his direction in an attempt to scare his own camel that he might fall into the ravine. The prophet however sensed their intentions and preemptively gestured so as to scare the coming camels and signify to the men that he uncovered their plan. They consequently quickly retreated. Even though the prophet's companions identified the perpetrators, the prophet isntructed them not to denounce them because "it was possible that they might repent".
In answer to the video "Why are there over 30 different Arabic Qur’ans? - Quranic Corrections Ep. 3"
One cannot create a recital in a vacuum and impose it on the masses, passing it off as authentically received from the prophet. This has never happened and never will. The process by which a particular recitation imposed itself was gradual, as it was transmitted from teacher to student.
Hafs isnt a Quran version but a recital, the most common type of recitation used in the Muslim world, the authenticated way in which the prophet himself recited the Quran. It is named after Hafs ibn Sulaymaan not because he initiated it or transmitted it, but because he recited best and in a most outstanding way one of the authentic qiraat traced back to the prophet. His qiraa/recitation is the one he learned from Aasim ibn Abi an-Najud, a tabi'ee, meaning the generation that met the prophet's companions but not the prophet himself. Aasim learned his recital from Abu abd al Rahman al Sulami who learned from the Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib. Aasim had several students reciters and Hafs was but one of them who excelled most.
The "Quran of Cairo" uses an elaborate system of modified vowel-signs and a set of additional symbols for minute details and is based on that reading. This edition has become the standard for modern printings of the Quran, since 1924 when the printing house was established in Cairo. Before that point, the Quran was printed in Istanbul until it ceased being the capital of the caliphate. Again, this is not a different Quran, but one whose Uthmanic rasm was improved over several years until 1924, so as to minimize scribal errors. Many such errors were detected in Quran copies which the Egyptian government used to import prior to 1924. These errors, in modern copies -not in ancient manuscripts-, are irrelevant in determining the authenticity of the Quranic text since they were pointed, and the copies destroyed by sinking them in the Nile river.
There are no differences between the Quran printed in Cairo and the ones printed all over the Muslim world. The Cairo edition is based on the well known hafs reading of the prophet himself. There was never any canonization process and debates, revisions over what the Quran's contents had to be. This is exactly what occured with the Bible with different canons over time. Nothing in the history of the Quranic text, even by the furthest stretch of imagination and revisionist fantasies, can be compared to the tumultuous 400 years following Jesus' death, which marked the canonization process of the Bible.
In answer to the video "Why are there over 30 different Arabic Qur’ans? - Quranic Corrections Ep. 3"
An important thing to note here is that Uthman was leader when the Muslim lands had already expanded over a third of the known world and the Quranic transmission was an on-going phenomenon mainly through memory. It would have been impossible for him, or anyone more powerful than him, to destroy all personal, private copies had there already existed differing traditions on written Qurans and manuscripts spread throughout the empire, let alone destroy all these "alternate" Qurans from the Muslims' memories and prevent their recitation.
It should be easy to provide empirical proof for these claims, like in Christianity, where there is manuscript evidence as well as a whole history of textual revisions, disagreements of what should or shouldnt be canonical. There is nothing even remotely similar in Islam. Also it is well known how Uthman's control on his own far regions, including Iraq and Egypt was weak. Hence his inability to control the rebellions and the rulers of the farthest regions of his empire, until he was finally assassinated in Medina.
These rebels and their rulers who never accepted Uthman's authority and upon whom he had no control did not need to reach the seat of the caliphate to have and propagate their own Qurans in their own regions upon which they had authority, just as their predecessors who never swore allegiance to the previous caliphs.
So despite their hatred for the caliphate, these rebels that the caliphs could not even control, magically followed Abu Bakr then Uthman's Quran in their own prayers, abandoning what they thought was God's word for the person they had actually revolted against and assassinated? Not a single source speaks of dispute between competing texts or of a rejection of Uthman's copy in favor of another.
Similarly the tensions surrounding the succession of the prophet had every reason to incite people to alter the Quran in their favor yet we find that all disputes and arguments between leaders and supporters against the opposite camp were never based on the Quran but on sayings of the prophet and his companions. The authoritative consonantal skeleton of the Quran is unanimously traced back to Uthman, not only by the Sunni tradition but also by their historical enemies like the Kharijites and the Shia. These groups and even sub groups were willing to go to war for their theological positions. They fabricated ahadith in defence of their views yet none ever tampered with the Quran. Not that they were not tempted, rather the oral and textual dissemination was such that corruption became impossible without being detected and discredited. So how could this pan-Islamic consensus have formed at a time when the Islamic community had spread from Spain to Iran, had split into several hostile groups, unless the Quran had attained the level of mass transmission/tawaatur? How could Uthman or even Abd al-Malik after him, have coerced their various adversaries to adopt "their" version of scripture, in addition crediting Uthman for it? There were other existing recensions, compiled by the prophet's companions such as that of Ibn Masud which he received from Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the prophet. Why didnt the Shia adopt it in order to demarcate themselves from the sunni? They could have in addition credited Ali for the compilation instead of Uthman. Also, variants are all still attested in many scholarly works throughout the centuries, with their chains of transmission, some authentically attested to the prophet and others of weaker authenticity. There is no widescale conspiracy to hide or suppress anything nor would it have been possible by the wildest stretch of imagination. And burning the defective copies did nothing to erase the knowledge of the variants from the hearts of the people, well after Uthman. Why didnt someone or at least a group of people who had preserved their alternate versions, somewhere in the vast caliphate begin the process of rewriting and propagating their own copies allegedly suppressed by Uthman?
It is obvious Uthman, who could not assert his political power in those lands, would not have been able to control something even more complex and dynamic and far ranging, which is the recitation and transmission of the Quran. And if Uthman had his own enemies to the point they revolted in Iraq and Egypt, and marched to Medina to have him assassinated, why would these people agree to Uthman's Quran? They surely would have kept their own "Qurans" but it didnt happen. So how did these multiple Qurans just disappear out of the collective conscience of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims, through the introduction of just 6-9 manuscripts, considering the fact that the vast majority of Muslims was illiterate anyway. And all this through the "force" of a man who was assassinated in his own house, as said earlier, unable to assert his political authority, yet he supposedly and just magically controlled all these various competing traditions of not just manuscripts, but RECITED words?
We have over 15 years, including Umar's extensive rule of Africa, Asia and parts of Central Asia, to Persia, meaning one is talking about a deeply embedded culture prior to Uthman even taking the reigns of rule. How did all these millions upon whom he in addition had no control line up in such a short-time to relearn and re-memorize the Quran due to a few manuscripts they couldnt even read, and abandon their differing tradition?
The opposition against Uthman, his growing unpopularity, and for which he was eventually assassinated, was due to divergence from the practice of the two preceding caliphs in handling the public trust of the Muslims, and other such issues. But his work relating to the Quran was appreciated equally by his friends and foes and it was never made a point of stigma on him by his adversaries. Had Uthman altered the Quran, that would have served as the clearest argument for, and major justification of, his public assassination.
In answer to the video "Why are there over 30 different Arabic Qur’ans? - Quranic Corrections Ep. 3"
The Quran was transmitted, learned and passed down both verbally and in script form, on a scale never seen for any document, let alone religious. Any unbiased individual can see this is a process which is still continuing today. But the primary source of transmission was always oral. All written texts were dependent on it and it still is the case today as all written texts must be attested by the oral tradition of transmission through a Hafiz. Again, this simply is a statement of fact. Writing down was only meant to consolidate the process of oral preservation.
This is what the novices to Islam, which is the case of most of its self-proclaimed critics, fail to grasp. They approach Quran authenticity with their own scriptural history in mind, thinking that the Quran was put to writing out of thin air. This dual method of control, textual but mainly oral, which was never practiced by the transmitters of the Bible, made it impossible for any tampering as it would immediately be detected by the thousands of memorizers in all corners of the Muslim territories. The number of people having transmitted the Quran is so vast that any error in the transmission, textual or oral, became impossible.
This is why the Quran is labelled "mutawattir", a level of authenticity attributed to an oral transmission when it has been related exactly the same way by countless independant sources. Extremely few ahadith have been labelled as such or reached the level of multiple independent sources as the Quran. Most ahadith are based ahad reports or singular transmissions. Further and in contrast to the Quran, the ahadith require isnad (detailed chain of transmission) to be validated, because the earliest communities often disputed and argued about the veracity of these statements.
The Quran never required any isnad to gain a sense of credibility and authenticity because the text and veracity of the Quran was agreed to by a consensus of the earliest Islamic communities. Despite the abundance of 1st-2nd century hijra manuscripts, there is zero proof that the Quran was transmitted in anyway other than tawatur. Hence the position of mainstream academia as regards the authenticity of the Islamic narrative of compilation, preservation, transmission of the text and recitals. See further below.
The Quran, contrary to both hadith and sunna does not seek support because it has community consensus or reliable transmission chain. Rather, it requires one to believe in its veracity based on it clear arguments. No scripture can be accepted purely on the basis that the same community profess its Divine origins and have themselves sought to protect it.
When Islam spread to territories where the people hadnt yet received an oral transmission of the Quran, but only the script, they were confused on the proper pronunciation of the words.
The basic nature of early scripts was suitable for the memorizers. They knew, through oral transmission the correct pronunciation of each word. Others however werent orally introduced to the Quran, and in addition spoke different dialects. They found great difficulty if they opened the Book and tried to read from such basic script for the first time. The Hebrew Bible was similarly only punctualized in the 9th century CE, hundreds of years after it is believed to have been written, to help the person less familiar with Hebrew.
This basic Quranic script was meant to keep it locked in its original double security system, textual/oral. Any one trying to bypass the established oral tradition and recite or read the Quran on his own would instantly be detected. Just as happens nowadays with critics trying to approach that basic script and suggest multiple possible readings, thinking they are discrediting it while they are in fact confirming the very purpose of those that compiled the Quran in this manner. The kind of recital and textual variants we see, either in the ancient manuscripts or as reported in Quran commentaries, testify to the early fixation of the text. Had the transmission only been oral there would have been variants the likes we have in the hadith literature when the earliest ahadith were strictly passed on orally for many decades prior to being written. This original, defective script of the Quran implies that written copies were only intended as memory aid. This is all the more true if one considers that the Arabic script had already stabilized even prior to Islam, and that Arabs already used diacritical marks. Yet the first official copies did not.
Papyri dated to 22AH contain dotting on several letters (PARF 557/558). A Quran manuscript, the Birmingham manuscript, radio carbon dated with high probability to the lifetime of the prophet's time or at most a few years after his death, has a partially dotted script. The lower script of the Sanaa manuscript is equally dotted in some instances. All the Hijazi manuscripts available, which are the earliest, are partially dotted.
Thus, this purposeful omission by the scribes, writing in a defective script, meant that it would have been impossible to read the Quran accurately strictly using the text. This reinforces the notion that an oral tradition was well established prior to the compilation effort. This by the way is one of the aspects of Muslim tradition confirmed by the Sanaa manuscripts. The authors of these texts made use of near-synonyms with certain passages from the Uthmanic recension. These near synonyms, known and listed in the Islamic tradition as parts of the prophetic approved readings, have led scholars that do not give much weight to the Muslim tradition, to actually confirm it once more as truthful. Commenting on various studies of the Sanaa manuscripts, Nicolai Sinai says
"The phenomenon (that is, of near symonyms) does, however, shed valuable light on the initial stage of the Quran’s transmission history, insofar as it suggests some degree of oral transmission in which transmitters were forced to rely on their memory of the gist of what was being said, rather than being able to check a written original. As Sadeghi has highlighted, the fact that an examination of the lower layer of the palimpsest yields a fair number but not a downright overabundance of such synonymic substitutions is best explained by an admixture of oral and written transmission. One may accordingly follow him in conceiving of the Quran’s textual transmission as being ultimately rooted in the transcription of oral proclamations recited at speed, thus accounting for the original transcribers’ occasional disagreement about whether a given verse employed, say, alnār or jahannam. The fact that Islamic works ascribe similar synonymic substitutions to some of the non-ʿUthmānic codices of the Quran reportedly com- piled by certain companions of the Prophet adds further weight to this hypothesis".
But this phenomenon of oral preservation was of course not exclusive to the Quran.
The pre and early post-Islamic culture was predominantly oral. Poets for example extremely rarely compiled their poetry into writing. The Quran was actually the very first Arabic book. Interestingly, the meaning of the word itself reflects that process. Quran, from qara'a means "to read" and in Arabic the term can be used both for reading from a physical text or from memory. The compilation of the Quran, the first Arabic book was a landmark in the history of the language and literature, beginning the transition from an oral to written society.
So, as Muslim territories expanded rapidly just a few decades following the prophet's death, the memorizers of the Quran could not keep up in reaching and educating every new community. It was not possible to send a reciter to every corner of the caliphate, before the need to read and recite the Quran had reached every community and individual. That is why the authorities had to further improve upon that basic orthography, making it easier for someone to read the Quran even if he wasnt fully acquainted with its recital prior. This will be shown later on.
So in 22/642, a little more than 10 years after the prophet's death, the caliph Uthman, in an effort to standardize the script of the Quran so as to allow it to be read the authentic recitations, took the loose pages of the Quran from Hafsa, the prophet's wife after her father Umar's death, for a copying in the form of a book or mushaf. There were no differences between the 2. Uthman simply used AbuBakr's compilation as a blueprint for the multiple copies he later disseminated in the Muslim territories. The process was done in combination with the approval of the best reciters of Medina. This is in keeping with the prophet's own practice of dual authentication and preservation of the Quran since the very first revelation.
Again, Uthman's mushaf was thus nothing but a clean and perfect copy of Abu Bakr's collection of the Quran, when he was the first caliph. Prior to Uthman's compilation efforts, Abu bakr collected the Quran from all the various supports on which it was written and that were found in the prophet's house, then handed it to Umar who left it to Hafsa. This will be detailed a little later.
