If we start rejecting prophets for having had sex with a concubine, then not much of the biblical prophets would be left. This youtuber is here attempting to misrepresent, with his biblical paradigm in mind, what a concubine is in Islam.
Besides those that already existed in the society and households before Islam, ma malakat aymanukum are not free persons randomly captured and enslaved or acquired through trade since the Quran only allows the enslavement of captives taken in defensive war campaigns, and only after the threat of war has been subdued meaning their seizure could not be an objective of going to war 8:67,47:4. In fact the prophet dismissed from fighting those that were more preoccupied with the prospect of capturing potential concubines as with Jadd/Judd b. Qays. Even those who were seemingly seeking to engage in jihad for noble purposes were sometimes turned away for an equally meritorious jihad
"A man came to the Prophet asking his permission to take part in Jihad. The Prophet asked him, "Are your parents alive?" He replied in the affirmative. The Prophet said to him, "Then make jihad in their service".
This is because benevolence is the basis of a stable and healthy society
"The one who looks after and works for a widow and for a poor person, is like a mujahid for Allah's Cause or like a person who fasts during the day and prays all the night".
As to those like Judd, the prophet would tell them that they would have far better reward in terms of physical companionship in the hereafter if they restrained themselves in this life
"There are six rewards with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood, he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, he secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head and its gems are better than the world and what is in it, he is married to seventy two (72) wives among the pure maidens of Paradise, and he may intercede for seventy of his close relatives".
It is to be noted that this is addressed to soldiers fighting for the survival of their people, giving up all worldly pleasures, refusing transgression and misbehavior, including physical and thus the reward can only be proportional to the worldly sacrifice as a basic demand of justice. This behavior the Quran instructs upon those accepting to shoulder the most selfless sacrifice, is in complete opposite to how the pre-islamic Arabs behaved in battle, and the ancient people in general, let alone the Israelites as amply described in their own books under divine sanction, since the times of Moses, and who basically had no ethical limits at the battlefield.
These Muslim martyrs, per the hadith, will be forgiven because they were merciful even at the battlefield, only fighting in retaliation, proportionally to the harm received, meaning they did not let the spirit of revenge take them over, and stopping all hostilities once the enemy surrenders 2:190-5,9:6.
They will be shown their places in paradise because, through their righteousness and impeccable behavior they would have shown the path to paradise to their friends and enemies alike.
They will be protected from the punishments and fear of the Hereafter, which are in Quranic terminology cleansing processes for worldly sins, because they have already accepted suffering, pain, hardships and fear as means by which to cleanse themselves in this life. They will be given the highest symbols of material honors and wealth because they gave up these worldly considerations when they engaged in battle, although they could have looted and abused of their position
4:74-75"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter..And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper".
They will be married, not given countless concubines as the prophets of the HB, to many women, pure like themselves, because they have never considered going to battle with the perspective of capturing women, in addition refused abusing of their power to assault them once in their hands. It is to be noted here that the majority of scholarly opinion regarding the verses about the maidens of paradise, is that they were revealed in Mecca, at a time where Muslims suffered persecution and before the injunctions to fight in the way of God. The Medinan verses about paradise speak of material and spiritual bliss, in the presence of the Creator.
Finally, because of their honoroble behavior on all counts, although having all opportunities to abuse and transgress, they will be given the possibility of interceding for their loved ones. This in Quran terminology is a mark of honor granted by God, to be among the select few allowed to speak on behalf of others. Intercession in the Quran is not a pleading action, but a reward since it will only be allowed on behalf of those that deserve it, as a means by which they are honored by association to a pure, exalted person.
For the martyr, to be among those exalted individuals to the extent that they will be themselves a means by which their loved ones will be rewarded, is in itself a great honor and reward. Again, the martyrs spoken of are not merely soldiers that die at the battlefield for worldly achievements and tales of heroism, but dead warriors who lived up until their final moments according to the spirit and ethics of Islam
“I heard the Messenger of God say: The first man [whose case] will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be one who died a martyr. He shall be brought [before the Judgment Seat]. God will make him recount His blessings [that is, the blessings which He had bestowed upon him] and he will recount them [and admit having enjoyed them in his life]. [Then] God will say: ‘What did you do [to requite these blessings]? He will say: ‘I fought for You until I died as a martyr.’ God will say: ‘You have told a lie. You fought so that you might be called “a brave warrior.” And you were called so.’ [Then] orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face down and cast into Hell. Then will be brought forward a man who acquired knowledge, imparted it [to others], and recited the Qur’an. He will be brought and God will make him recount His blessings and he will recount them [and admit having enjoyed them in his lifetime]. Then will God ask: ‘What did you do [to requite these blessings]?’ He will say: ‘I acquired knowledge, disseminated it, and recited the Qur’an, seeking Your pleasure.’ God will say: ‘You have told a lie. You acquired knowledge so that you might be called “a scholar;” you recited the Qur’an so that it might be said: “He is a Qari” and such has been said.’ Then orders will be passed against him and he shall be dragged with his face down and cast into the Fire. Then will be brought a man whom God had made abundantly rich and had granted every kind of wealth. He will be brought and God will make him recount His blessings. He will recount them and [admit having enjoyed them in his lifetime]. God will [then] ask: ‘What have you done [to requite these blessings]?’ He will say: ‘I spent money in every cause in which You wished that it should be spent.’ God will say: ‘You are lying. You did [so] that it might be said about [you]: “He is a generous fellow” and so it was said.’ Then will God pass orders and he will be dragged with his face down and thrown into Hell”.
So although sacrifice for the cause of Islam is praiseworthy, like any apparently good deed, it loses its value when done insincerely, with an objective other than the Hereafter and to please Allah. The Quran and ahadith contain many such statements, hence the focus first and foremost on cleansing one's heart before pretending that one's deed are of any value to Allah
"Abdallah b. ‘Umar told that the Prophet used to say, “Everything has a polish, and the polish for hearts is rememberance of God. Nothing saves more from God’s punishment than remembrance of God.” He was asked whether this did not apply also to jihad in God’s path, and said, “Not even if one should ply his sword till it is broken".
In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"
3:144 is an interesting, multifaceted verse. It was revealed in the context of the battle of Uhud during which the Muslims were overwhelmed by the enemy and rumor spread that the prophet was killed. So many of the believers fled the battlefield and some considered apostasy. They are admonished not for stopping to fight but for depending their faith on the prophet; meaning their belief would continue as long as he lived, and disappear the moment he died, turning back to their former state after finding the guidance.
The verse tells them that the religion of truth and its successful establishment is in the hands of Allah, Muhammad has no authority in this affair, he is but a messenger charged with conveying the message and many passed away before him. This is particularly made clear when Allah mentions the war of Badr and his assistance to the believers and suddenly cuts short the speech, turning towards His Prophet to tell him,
3:127-128"You have no concern in the affair".
In its wider implication the verse re-states the fundamental Islamic doctrine that adoration is due to God alone, and that no human being - not even a prophet - may have any share in it. 3:144 also hints to another reality, by mentioning both the possibilities of assassination and of Muhammad dying a natural death it projects on the future behavior of the Muslims and warns them that Muhammad is naught but a messenger, that they should not idolise him and turn upon their heels after him. When prophets were sent to humanity with the guidance, wisdom and Book from Allah, it was not for their followers to be their servants and neither to be worshiped, but to worship Allah alone 3:78-79. Muslims must uphold at all costs, this religion of Ibrahim and this Quran. The striking similarity between
3:144"Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away"
and
5:75"The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away"
comes as a sign from Allah who makes clear His communications. Only these 2 messengers are described with the exact same wording because no other prophets were inappropriately over exalted among the nations to whom they were sent and the subsequent generations, as much as these 2
"See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away".
Noting encapsulates that notion more than the shahada which places God as the only entity worthy of worship, side by side with Muhammad who is nothing but His messenger.
The Quran requires from the prophet in turn, to declare belief in God and the past prophets equally 2:285. The Shahada is a testimony in which the fundamental principles that concentrate all tenets of the Book are mentioned. It isnt meant at listing all the tenets of Islam, but at mentioning the aspects that encapsulate them most. This is very similar to the Biblical notion of the "10 sayings", erroneously rendered 10 "commandments" in Christian Bibles. These 10 sayings encapsulate the entire 613 mosaic commandments revealed at Sinai for the Jewish people. In the case of the shahada, the fundamental tenets mentioned are; belief in only one entity worthy of worship, Allah, and obedience to His messenger Muhammad. The first part stresses uncompromising monotheism. That part is stated in the negative rather than the positive. This is because the true challenge is not to believe in a single creator but to cleanse oneself of partnering with Him, whether it is another deity, worldly authority, or personal desire. The second part of the shahada stresses belief in all that was brought by that divinely appointed human being, as well as adherence to the community established through him. If these 2 components are understood and accepted, one has uttered the complete testimony to Islam.
Of course a hypocrite or liar can testify outwardly without inner conviction 49:14-17,63:1. Their disregard and lowly opinion for that which they claim belief in, does not however diminish anything of its truth and value so long as God is testifying to the truth. Even if the most noble witnesses attest to the truth of those principles, God remains the supreme and most valuable witness, because He is the highest standard of Truth
4:166"But Allah bears witness by what He has revealed to you that He has revealed it with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness (also); and Allah is sufficient as a witness".
The Quran hardly has a page which does not address the central religious issue of striving in God's way through trials of ease and hardship, where one will have to assert his will freely and choose to act within the limits of Allah. This hard struggle will go on, uninterrupted until the day where all will return to Him 84:6 and the road to the highest places is sometimes compared to an uphill climb 90:4-18, or as Jesus says to a tight path leading to a narrow door Matt7:13-14. This verse 90:4 does not speak of evil or of a wicked human nature, it is referring to the difficulties that will come in man's life as an inevitable consequence of him being a volitional creature, as stated in the following verses
90:8-10"Have We not given him two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways?"
Elsewhere the Quran eloquently uses the image of life being a vast ocean upon which man is constantly trying to remain afloat, and the manner to do so is given as spiritual strengthening through righteous deeds
73:1-10,29:2-3"Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, We believe, and not be tried? And certainly We tried those before them, so Allah will certainly know those who are true and He will certainly know the liars".
This purification process is necessary for a soul's success in the Hereafter 87:14. The success will only be possible when one, out of conviction stands before God in an attitude called ihsan
4:125"And who has a better religion than he who submits himself entirely(in ihsan) to Allah? And he is the doer of good (to others) and follows the faith of Ibrahim, the upright one".
This is the purest definition of Islam -willful servitude to God- and no other way is acceptable to Him. Mere declaration isnt enough, one must be able to withstand the requirements of that obedience despite the moments of hardship and ampleness, until his last breath 3:102. The key to that successful end is to have the quality of sabr/steadfastness and constancy, epitomised by the greatest prophets and the manner in which they endured the trials of life while maintaining spiritual uprightness in words, intentions and deeds not once, but throughout their lives, striving to maintain it as a prominent spiritual trait 16:127,13:28.
The importance of being entirely submitted to God is emphasized in past scriptures too 2Chron30:8,Job22:21. After the prophet Muhammad, submission to God entailed accepting His revelations and laws which have reached their ultimate form with the Quran. Of course some may hypocritically submit without sincere belief and the Quran repeatedly speaks of, and exposes this behaviour
49:14"The dwellers of the desert say: We believe. Say: You do not believe but say, We submit; and faith has not yet entered into your hearts..".
The prophet said
"Faith/iman consists of more than sixty branches (i.e. parts). And Haya (This term "Haya" covers a large number of concepts which are to be taken together; amongst them are self respect, modesty, bashfulness, and scruple, etc.) is a part of faith."
The early Muslims in particular who were threatened by the phenomenon of religious hypocrisy, distinguished between one that enters Islam and one that implements it with sincerity
"I asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Why have you left that person? By Allah I regard him as a faithful believer." The Prophet commented: "Or merely a Muslim."
Iman literally means "to feel secure". It entails complete trust, in a religious context, to God besides Whom there is no protector. The word is most appropriate considering the objective of the religion, which is to build a relationship between the individual and his Creator. Through pondering on the signs surrounding the individual, external and internal, as well as the divine revelation, one progressively increases in iman 4:136,47:17,48:4 until a level of submission is reached that entails a detailed and entire dedication of one's life to that new system
43:69,2:208"O you who believe/alatheena amanu, enter into submission one and all".
Iman and that ultimate level of submission therefore express themselves through one's deeds
49:15,2:25"And give glad tidings unto those who believe and do good works; that theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow" 14:31"Say to My servants who believe/alatheena amanu that they should keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them secretly and openly before the coming of the day in which there shall be no bartering nor mutual befriending".
Allah also describes the high status of Muhammad and his companions, and then ends 48:29 with
"Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward".
The phrase "among them" is highly significant and shows that even among these high ranked people, the honour and respect with Allah depends on real, concrete deeds, and most of all steadfastness and constancy on the straight path
16:110"Definitely, your Lord unto those who have migrated after being persecuted, then they struggled and patiently persevered; verily your Lord, after that, is forgiving Merciful"
3:136"As for these, their reward is forgiveness from their Lord and Gardens beneath which rivers flow; therein they will abide forever. How blissful will the reward of (such) workers/aamilin be!".
The basic principle that the spiritual felicity does not depend on name or nomenclature, that no one can get honour with Allah except by true faith in, and total servitude to Him throughout one's life is reiterated many times
20:112,33:29,2:112"whoever submits his self entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good, he has his reward with his Lord".
The submission to Allah is therefore the merging of the correct belief, with the correct deeds
29:7,35:10"To Him do ascend the good words; and the good deeds, lift them up".
The shahada itself is not found mentioned in a single Quranic verse. But the repeated axiom throughout the Book of what constitutes correct faith is belief in Allah and unconditional obedience to His messenger. Although one is free to add any other tenet within the testimony, like the prophethood of a specific individual such as Jesus or Noah, or belief in the previous books, or the entities of the unseen such as the angels, the testimony of faith would remain incomplete if belief in Muhammad's prophethood isnt expressed. It would still leave many principles of the Book as unattested for. As well it would give the ambiguity that one has not fully adhered to the community established by Muhammad, or that Muhammad is a true prophet. On the other hand to testify to Muhammad's divine appointment, automatically entails belief in all that is propounded in the message he brought, which includes every single principle and tennet of the Book, indiscriminate honoring of all of God's prophets of whom Muhammad is part of, as well as adherence to the Islamic community. That is why one may only add specific testimonies of faith once the 2 main components have been uttered and accepted. Some may choose adding an aspect in relation to a previous belief system, such as Jesus being nothing but a prophet of God so as to stress one's dissociation from trinitarian Christianity, as is typically done by a former Christian.
In every day speak Muslims very often utter one or another aspect of the shahada in an isolated manner. A Muslim will often express that God is the only deity worthy of worship in a discussion, or that Muhammad is the messenger of God. It is even seen in all types of arts and engravings, past and present. This does not mean that a partial or incomplete shahada is being expressed. Nothing in any of those art works hint at or claim to be declarations of faith.
Jesus taught his followers the testimony of faith similar to the Muslim shahada
Jn17:3"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".
Once again, 2 basic components for a clear testimony of faith, uncompromising monotheism on one side and adherence to a community established by a divinely appointed human being, distinct from the One God who sent him. That community must accept Jesus' leadership only, reorienting their past emotional and spiritual affiliations for new norms they are expected to live by
Lk14:26"If any man comes to me and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers and sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple".
The issue of aqeedah/aqida is one that developed between the 8th-10th century by the likes of ibn Hanbal, abu Hasan al Ashari, al Shafi'i, al Maturidi or al Ghazali. These are the schools that have survived within sunni Islam. However, historically there have existed many more schools than these. Even today, there are minority schools within Sunni Islam, as well as major schools of thought outside of Sunni Islam. The scholars who formulated their aqeedah, felt the need to answer questions raised by new adherents to Islam with different cultural backgrounds and by non-Muslim critics, as the empire spread far beyond Arabia. A aqida or creed, takes the well established aspects of belief/iman, as stated in the Quran 2:177,4:136 such as God's oneness, resurrection, angels, books and prophets, and expounds upon each aspect in details. Sunnis have included qadar/predestination as a sixth point in light of the hadith of Gabriel
"Inform me about Iman (faith)." He (the Prophet) answered, "It is that you believe in Allah and His angels and His Books and His Messengers and in the Last Day, and in fate (qadar), both in its good and in its evil aspects".
Having the correct aqeedah consists for a large part of practicing Tawhid. Tawhid means Allah is One in His Lordship and no one has the power over the creation but Him. He is One in the right to be worshipped. He has Names and Attributes unique to Him. The prophet and the companions did not have to establish detailed creeds as they did not have to contend with the questions and doubts raised after their time. Not a single scholar or adherent to a particular creed negates those points, from Sunni to Shia. So, although the aqeedah of the prophet and the companion was very concise, the later scholars of Islam developped extremely detailed formulation of it. A Aqeedah became more like a lengthy argumentation in light of a particular scholar's philosophical, intellectual, vocabulary tools at hand. The vast majority of the points discussed in a aqeeda do not explicitly go back to the prophet or the companions, but are the result of a particular scholar's deductions, hence the divergences in aqeedas. One therefore doesnt need to agree on every single point of a scholar's articulation of the pillars of belief, if one is able to show that the point one disagrees with doesnt necessarily follow the premise, just as scholars disagreed among themselves on those details. The fact is throughout the centuries there were nuances on the fine points of aqeeda among scholars of the same school. The detailed articulations of the pillars of belief did not lead any Muslim group to deviate from worshiping one entity, to several, as happened to Christianity. Christians went as far in the development of their creeds that they had to invent new vocabulary, including the notion of "persons" to mask the reality of the tri-theism they fell into. The divergences between schools pertain, among other things to whether the descriptions of certain of God's attributes likes eyes and hands, should they be understood literally, metaphorically or one of the two depending on context and language? Does qadar cause human deeds directly by affecting human will, indirectly by causing freewill to exist or sometimes one or the other depending on context? As to the hadith on the 72 sects, the part stating that only 1 will be admitted to heaven is highly controversial in its isnad and even contradicts the plain meaning of many Quranic passages about the resurrection and judgement, where each individual will be raised alone to account for his own beliefs and actions.
Aqeeda differences are nothing like the differences in creeds within the Christian Church tradition for instance, where differences affect the nature of God, the hierarchy of the godhead, human nature, or the hereafter. For example does the holy spirit issue from the father or from both the father and son (who was "begotten" by the father)? What is the relation of humans with divine grace, do Christians become partakers or not of the divine nature? Will the dead go through a purgatory in the afterlife? Is sin a hereditary condition making all humans totally depraved, and that initiated with Adam or did his descendants inherit the state of mortality?
The Quran, when refering to the most honourable experiences of the prophet still calls him a slave, such as in the context of his chosenness, possessor of a miracle and taken on the israa and miraj 2:23,17:1,18:1. Therefore the Quran continuously stresses the prophet Muhammad being a slave of Allah like any Muslims 7:194, not possessing the keys of the unseen except what Allah granted him 7:188 and him being nothing but a warner and giver of glad tidings. Upon the prophet's passing away and as the Muslims were bewildered with grief, Abu Bakr rose up and recited this verse 3:144. The attendance perceived then the appropriateness and relevance of the verse in relation to their inner thoughts. Hearing the verse again shocked them to such an extent that
"it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this verse".
When death is decreed by Allah it cannot be avoided or delayed no matter how mighty and powerful a human being may be as was the case with prophet Sulayman who was given dominion in the land and granted supernatural powers as no prophet was granted before him, yet when Allah decreed his death, his soul was snatched and his body remained supported a longtime by his staff until the ants ate it away and his body fell, to the astonishment of men and unseen beings alike 34:14.
In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"
As is explicit in the Quran, the divine protection of the prophets pertains strictly to the revelation and its implementation. But in everyday affairs, the messengers, who are still humans endowed with freewill and thus the potential, if not to sin due to their heightened level of spiritual awareness, to make mistakes, they are left to their own devices in their everyday lives to fight off the assaults of evil forces.
No prophet was in a constant state of communication with the divine realm. The hadith and Quran itself speak of long periods where revelation had stopped, and the subsequent tauntings of his enemies on the issue, the questions of his followers and his anxious anticipation. The prophet is for instance reported, as a reflection of his all too often humble character, to have said
"I am only human like you; I forget as you forget. If I forget, then remind me".
This comes in the context of a slight mistake which he had done during prayer, inadvertently shortening it, apparently angry with himself as he suspected the mistake, then humbly accepting the correction from the attendance which confirmed his thought
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) meanwhile, stood by a piece of wood placed in the mosque, leaning against it, as if he was angry. So a man stood and said, 'O Messenger of Allah, have you forgotten or has the prayer been reduced?' So the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said, 'I did not forget nor has it been reduced.' So the man said, 'Rather you have indeed forgotten.' So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to the Companions, 'Is what he is saying true?' They said 'Yes' So the Prophet (peace be upon him) went forward and prayed what remained of the prayer, then he gave the salutation, then he prostrated twice, then he gave the salutation".
The prophet did not forget the Quran. He forgot, momentarily like any one with a memory lapse, certain passages. That is irrelevant to the issue of Quran preservation. When these memory lapses occured, the Quran had already been transmitted, in both oral and written form. Hence even regular members of the community, not even renouned memorizers, correcting the prophet's recital.
Something important noting in that regard. The Quran assures him
87:6"We shall make you recite (sanuqriuka) so you shall not forget".
Allah was literaly puting the holy words into the prophet's mouth
19:97"We have only made it easy in your tongue that you may give good news thereby to those who guard (against evil) and warn thereby a vehemently contentious people"
and teaching him how to read them out. As the prophecy of Deut18 says
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him".
Man is apt to forget, and the Prophet was a human being and he too was apt to forget and since the Quran was also a great asset which was being entrusted to him, he would repeat each and every word of the revelation fearing that any of it might slip away from his memory. This verse, telling him he will be made to recite in manner so as to not forget, came as a reassurance, stressing that God has taken upon Himself its impression on his memory. This was not by his own power and leave, being a mortal like anyone else and it is a reminder of this reality that the Quran continues
87:7"Except what Allah pleases, surely He knows the manifest, and what is hidden".
The context of the verse is about intricate, detailed, purposeful divine planing for all things and how nothing escapes God's grasp and knowledge. The prophet's rare occasions of very limited forgetfulness (and his followers and recorders' reminding him) were fully in accordance with that master plan, meant among other things at humbling him as well as to the believers' eyes around him, of his own faillibility as a human being as well of God's being in control of the process of memorization and compilation of the Quran, allowing only what He wills to be temporarily, not completely, forgotten.
As a principle, the Quran reminds in many instances of that concept, how this revelation and its very preservation is a mercy from Allah that could be taken away from Muhammad or erase parts of it from the prophet's own memory without him noticing it as said above, therefore man should remain grateful for it and never feel complacent
17:86-7"And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you, then you would not find for it any protector against Us. But on account of mercy from your Lord-- surely His grace to you is abundant".
It is because of this very complacency towards divine guidance, the rejection, persecution and killing of the prophets sent in their midst that God temporarily interrupted an ongoing guiding revelation to the nation of Israel Ezek3:26,24:27,33:21-22.
In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"
As regards the stoning verse, Umar doesnt argue it was part, or should have been part of the Quran. He simply laments that people might forget or neglect the command, precisely because of it not being in the Quran. The mere statement that "I read it" does not indicate he read it as part of the Quran left by the prophet. Some prophetic rulings and prayers were meant to be of temporary application, but they were never meant to be in the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the complete and final version left by the prophet. But anyone could have written those rulings down, just as people recorded non-Quranic utterances of the prophet in his own lifetime.
The fact that Umar remembered the "stoning verse", as well as other companions the likes of Ubay and Zaid bin Thabit, means that it was never lost. It was memorized and preserved, regardless of whether the written copies of it were all destroyed somehow, including the discarded report stating one written copy in Aisha's house was "eaten by a sheep". Umar and other companions could have simply re-introduced it in their own manuscript at least, had it been meant to be in the Quran. But this never occured, because nobody thought the prophet recited it as part of the Quran. Al Ghamari has rightly observed that what some call the ayat al rajm is not a verse at all, but at most a hadith. When the prophet uttered it, Umar recalls
"I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said: It was as if the Prophet disliked that".
In another narration, the Prophet said in response
"I cannot have it written".
This desire of Umar to have it written, does not imply "as part of the Quran". Umar wanted it recorded so it can never be forgotten, which the prophet disliked. The only reason is that it could get confused as a Quran verse. And this is exactly what later occured with the proponents of abrogation. Some believed that certain statements were temporary Quran verses, that got abrogated once they saw and heard the final and completed Quran left by the prophet. This notion however isnt established by any prophetic saying. Nowhere does the prophet support the theory of abrogation of a Quran verse by another, nor does he hint to it. Other misunderstandings might be due to words of prayers which the prophet recited and that were thought to be Quran verses, until they saw that the prophet did not instruct them to be part of the final version. Even today, in the daily prayers and many other rituals, Muslims recite words that arent from the Quran.
Again, none ever argued that these verses were missing from the Quran which the prophet left, just that they were abrogated. In addition, the prophet did sometimes speak revelation, which he paraphrased and that were never meant to be in the Quran, known later as hadith qudsi. Some early believers might have included them in their personal recitations, just as others would include personal notes in relation to certain passages, and even words of prayers and supplications.
A typical such example is that of Ubayy' ibn Kaab's supposed 2 missing chapters, al-Hafd and al-Khalaa, which were in fact supplications the prophet used to recite and never ordered them written as part of the Quran, neither did Ubayy claim anything of the sort. That later people believed them to be so is no proof of anything. Ubayy was part of the standardization comitee under Uthman. Uthman himself is reported to have recited these supposed "lost surahs" as a supplication in his prayers (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, n°7032).
The prophet allowed, under his watch, for the companions to freely paraphrase, add or substract to certain Quran passages during their supplications. The prophet himself did so, sometimes merging different suras together for supplication
"When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) went to his mattress each night, he joined the palms of his hands, then breathed into them and recited into them: “Say: ‘He is Allah, One [qul Huwa'llahu Ahad]!' (Al-Qur'an;112:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of the Daybreak [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq]!' (Al-Qur'an;113:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of humankind [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbi’n-nas]!' (Al-Qur'an;114:1)".
Neither the prophet nor the companions said that these recitals were to be passed on as Quran readings. Here is another example with sura ikhlas
"Mihjan bin Al-Adra' narrated to him that the Messenger of Allah entered the masjid and there was a man who had finished his prayer and he was reciting the tashahhud. He said: "Allahumma inni as'aluka ya Allah! Bi-annakal-Wahidul-Ahad us-Samad, alladhi lam yalid wa lam yowled, wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad, an taghfirali dhunubi, innaka antal-Ghafurur-Rahim".
The prophet forbade his contemporaries from recording from him anything other than the Quran, precisely to limit or stop this phenomenon
"Do not write down anything of me...whoever writes other thn the Quran should delete it".
This shows that the prophet was reacting to an already existing trend among certain believers. But the consensus of the community, given the mass transmission of the Quran, always prevailed over these marginal opinions. Another such issue is that of the verse on the 10 sucklings, later reduced to 5 sucklings and finally abrogated shortly before the prophet's death. The abrogation and death of the prophet happened so close to oneanother that some people still were unaware of the final version of the Quran, and were still reciting the abrogated verse. One cannot but wonder how close to his death did this occur considering that the same hadith books say that Gabriel reviewed the entire recitation of the Quran with the prophet twice the year he passed away, without any reported change between the recitations. This contradicts the notion that a Quran containing the abrogated verse was in circulation until very close to his death to the point that some were still reciting the abrogated verse after his death. The simple explanation for such a report would be that, again some people among the vast cluster of tribes spread throughout the peninsula that adopted Islam by the time of the prophet's death, may have confused a ruling never meant to be part of the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the final version, before they were corrected. These individual errors and confusions have nothing to do with the issue of Quran authenticity. The hadith itself says they were corrected in their recital, meaning the true and final Quran left by the prophet was present among the people
"Then, when Allah’s Messenger died these words were among what was recited in the Qur’an"
Another important thing to note is that the compilers of the Quran after the prophet's death, included even verses they deemed abrogated based on the fact that they were part of the final recital they heard from the prophet
"Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to `Uthman bin `Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" `Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place".
Abrogation was thus not a criteria for the compilers, rather the last prophetic recital was. Had the prophet recited what is stated about the 5 sucklings, it would have been integrated in its precisely defined place.
We do not have competing texts that sprung up after the prophet, as was the case with the Judeo-christian scriptures until very late in their finalization process. What is also important to note is that Aisha in that hadith doesnt quote the prophet. She might have been quoting someone else or reporting what some people thought.
Similarly we read that
"‘Umar found a Mushaf (manuscript) with a boy wherein it was written, ‘the prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and he is a father to them, and his wives are their mothers.’ He said, ‘Erase it O boy!’ The boy replied, ‘By Allah I will not erase it and it is so in the Mushaf of Ubayy bin Ka’b.’ So ‘Umar went to Ubayy bin Ka’b". There Ubayy replied; "[Occupation with] Qur’an causes me the lapse as you are caused a lapse by the noise in the markets …"
So even the renouned Ubay could make an error in his own reading and text. He admits to the correct reading by acknowledging his error. Years later, he was part of the committee charged with supervising the standardization of the Quran. This error he made while writing 33:6 isnt found in any of the manuscripts he was in charge of, meaning he had agreed with the correction years before. Other important issues often missed by those approaching hadith literature and wanting to draw quick conclusions, and which are probably forever lost, are the intricacies of the context of a hadith, as with any discussion between individuals. It is possible for example that during a recital, the prophet broke up his recitation in the midst and gave an explanation which some might have thought to be actually part of the Quran.
Aisha once asked her scribe to add "and the asr prayer" or according to Tabari "and it is the asr" in the known verse
2:238"Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer [and it is the Asr] and stand obedient to Allah".
A similar report is attributed to Hafsa. The verse was known unanimously in the time of Aisha, who quotes it as is known today. She might have wanted to add in her own personal manuscript, an exegesis the prophet had made while commenting on the verse and which Aisha wrongly thought was part of it. It is interesting to note that we find the same type of elaboration in the following hadith
"We were in the company of the Prophet on the day (of the battle) of al-Khandaq. The Prophet said, "May God fill their graves and houses with fire, as they have kept us so busy (in battle) that we could not offer the middle prayer till the sun had set; and it is the 'asr prayer".
The last part is supposed to be an insertion by the prophet, although it obviously runs against the flow of the speech. It could have been an addition by the narrator the same way the addition in 2:238 is attributed to the prophet. As already noted, some others might mix up a prophet's hadith with the Quran even though it remained orally transmitted. Then they might imagine it to be part of a larger sura. For example, the statement attributed to Ubayy ibn Kaab where he speaks of a verse he heard the prophet recite from sura 98
"If the son of Adam had a valley of wealth..".
The "verse" clearly has hadith wording and expressions not found in the Quran (yahudiyyah, nasraniyyah and hanifiyyah etc). Besides, this "verse" is found in ibn Majah solely as a hadith, without any mention of sura 98. We also find many ahadith where the prophet recites sura 98 to Ubayy without any mention of the missing "verse". Some might remember a particular verse in a flawed manner, or even mix up several verses together and think that they were orinally as they remembered. For example Maslamah ibn Khalid al Ansari claimed 2 verses were absent from the Quran, which clearly seem to be 8:74 and 32:17 joined together.
Even AbuBakr and ibn Abbas once recited 50:19 and 90:1 respectively slightly differently than is found in the Uthmanic recension. But witnesses stated they heard them at other occasions reciting with the same wording that has reached us. They, like any other companion, and the prophet himself, were of course not immune to momentary memory lapses.
All these cases, again, are irrelevant in regards to the question of preservation of the Quran. In each case, as it occured even to the prophet himself when he had a memory lapse, the consensus of the community was thereto safeguard the correct transmission.
There are other relevant things to consider when evaluating such reports. Including, the many known motivations to forge ahadith, their language and various versions of the same hadith with extra information, or the weakness of a reporter.
Hadith interpretation is a delicate science and Muslims never take any report for granted simply because it is compiled in a book deemed "authentic". No human being is faultless, except the prophets who were preserved in a single aspect; receiving, communicating and practicing the divine revelation. In fact the prophet himself stated that
"lies will spread after me, so whatever hadith comes to you compare it with the Book of God".
Content of a report thus supersedes even the reliability of the transmitters.
In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"
As shown in the previous video, anyone claiming alterations in the Quran under Uthman, would be at variance with the most elementary reasoning. Some critics nevertheless insist, based on 2 traditions, that al Hajjaj completely altered the Uthman recension and was thus responsible for the transmission and dissemination of an altered Quran. These claims are based on 1 Muslim report, from Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud, and 1 Christian report, based on an exchange of letters between the Ummayad Caliph Umar II and the Byzantine Emperor Leo III. The Christian report is irrelevant due to its failing to pass the authentication criteria. The report from ibn Abi Dawud similarily fails in that regard. But besides the known weakness of that report, what refutes these claims is that all the Arabic actually says is that al-Hajjaj made 11 LETTER changes to Uthman's Quran.
The report then follows, not by showing what these textual alterations are but by giving the reporter's RECITAL compared to al-Hajjaj's recital. These changes arent therefore textual but pertaining to the Qiraat/recitation methods. Both these recitals are in fact mutawattir/authenticated and going back to the prophet.
Also, al-Hajjaj was merely the governor of one county -Iraq- of the huge Islamic land without the ability to do the Quran any harm. In Uthman's time itself, countless copies of his codexes were already disseminated far and wide. The phenomenon was even more amplified by the time of al-Hajjaj. Supposing that he was still able to change the copies of his county how could he reach the 1000s of other ones in other districts, let alone reform and reset the people's memories to his "major alterations"? This is equivalent to saying that should suddenly the king of Saudi Arabia decide to forcefully change the Quran entirely in his own country today, then it would mean those changes could somehow affect the memories and written Qurans of billions worldwide. In his own lifetime, when al-Hajjaj dispatched one of his codices to Egypt, the local governor Abd al-Aziz ibn Marwan, rejected it, then had his own codex produced. Al-Hajjaj's authority in the matter was thus regional at most. He was not in a position to carry out an empire-wide standardization of scripture.
The bottom line is that even by the furthest stretch of the imagination, if one would accept the claim of corruption of the Quran as true, then how does that really impact the remaining oral and written tradition already disseminated far beyond al-Hajjaj's jurisdiction?
It is worth reminding that there exists no parallel reports, contemporary or later, through another chain to substantiate the claim as regards al-Hajjaj. No contradiction is ever mentionned between the Codices of Iraq and the other Codices.
The Abbassid dynasty that was built upon the ruins of the Umayyads, of whom al-Hajjaj was the most notable governor, did not waste a single occasion to show the Umayyad's negative aspects and effects on Islam in general. And yet we do not hear or read a word as regards this particular controversy, most significant in discrediting an enemy with whom they were at war. If anything, what the historical reports show is that al Hajjaj was very helpful in consolidating the Uthmanic text, not a new one or his own invented one. That is why the Abbassid caliphs, that supplanted the Umayyads did not destroy al-Hajjaj's copies but instead would tacitly discredit it, by for example, putting it in a box on the side of the pillar adjacent to the minbar in the mosque (Ibn Zabala).
Contrary to some critics' claims, al-Hajjaj was very careful in preserving the Uthmanic recension. He for instance immidiately summoned Yazid al-Farisi, the scribe of his predecessor Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad because of the introduction of 2 alef in 2 verses 23:87,89. Ibn Ziad had done it simply to agree with his Basran dialect. This shows how alteration or tampering with the Quran from al-Hajjaj, or anyone else for that matter, even if minimal, cannot have taken place without any reaction from the contemporary scholars.
The background of al-Hajjaj's compilation effort is this. His governorship came at a time of great political turmoil in Iraq between the shiite Kufans and the ruling Umayyads. Tension had already started in the time of his predecessor ibn Ziyad. The Kufans, partisans of Ali ibn abi Talib as the rightful successor of the prophet, symbolized their political rejection of the Umayyad by clinging to the recital of ibn Masud from the prophet. Ibn Ziyad, Al-Hajjaj's predecessor, would for example provoke the Kufans by reciting suras 113 and 114 in prayer, as it is known that ibn Masud had not included them in his compilation. Al-Hajjaj was even bolder in his provocations. He would mock and discredit ibn Masud as well as his recital
"How I wonder about Ibn Masud! He claimed to have read the [original] Quran of God. I swear by God that it is just a piece of rajaz poetry of the Bedouins".
Al-Hajjaj also reportedly said
"Ibn Masud is the chief of hypocrites. If I had lived in the same time as his, I would have soaked the ground with his blood ’”.
He would often threaten the Kufans should they not cease following the reading of ibn Masud (Asim ibn Bahdala). His hatred for his Kufan enemies, whose recital according to ibn Masud continuously symbolized the rejection of the Umayyad caliphate, was such that Al-Hajjaj swore that he would erase this reading from the mushaf
"even if it would be with a rib of a swine".
But because he could not do so, as he knew it would be tantamount to rejecting the Quran itself, what he did instead is conducting a major standardization project of the Quranic text. Only then, would he be able to exclude ibn Masud's reading in some instances from the skeletal text. The initiative was supported by the central government in Damascus. Al-hajjaj selected memorizers, readers, gramarians and scribes from Basra only. Just as Uthman before him used as a blueprint AbuBakr's collection that was in Hafsa's hands, al-Hajjaj used the private mushaf of Uthman, which was then in the possession of the family of Uthman (Al-Baqillani).
And, just like his repdecessor, as the work of the project approached its end, al-Hajjaj destroyed the texts in circulation that differed from the Uthmanic recension. Of course he did not miss the occasion to destroy ibn Masud's copy so as to progressively make the people forget his reading. This however did not work as his reading, going back to the prophet, is still known today. It is none other than the reading of Aasim through ibn Masud from the prophet. The great reciter Aasim had preserved 2 readings from the prophet.
Al-Hajjaj obviously knew he needed to do more to make the people forget the reading of ibn Masud. His standardized text did not allow the reading of ibn Masud, just as today for example one reading the Hafs text does not allow for other authentic readings, because its vowelization and dotting corresponds to strictly one reading. Al-Hajjaj then decreed that in the mosques of the major cities one was only allowed to recite from the new codices. Malik ibn Anas said
"The recitation of the Quran from the mushaf was not an old tradition among the people. The first to introduce it was al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf".
However, even on this point, he was unsuccessful. Especially in the anti-Umayyad city of Kufa where people would not give credit to their enemy by using his text.
In this atmosphere of hatred between the 2 camps, Shiites and Umayyads, al-Hajjaj could have never done the slightest alteration to the text itself and go unnoticed. The rejection of al-Hajjaj's compilation was never due to his changing or corruption of the text. None of his numerous enemies, let alone the other Muslims spread all over the territories on whom he had no jurisdiction, ever accuse him of corruption. All that al-Hajjaj did to the Uthmanic text was adding sura titles, sura and paragraph divisions, dotting on certain similar looking consonants. In a tradition going back to Yahya ibn abi Kathir (d 129/747)
"The Quran was bare [of all diacritics] in the masahif. The points on the ya and ta were the first points to have been introduced. They said: ‘It does not go against the Quran. It will make the text of the Quran clearer ’”.
The introduction of diacritical points in the text was an innovation, although dotting was already practiced in pre-Islamic times. The first compilers of the Quran simply chose not to use dots so as to secure the text in a double preservation method. None would be able to correctly read it without being first introduced to the proper recital.
Al-Hajjaj further comissioned the assembly to count the verses, words and consonants. The differences in figures that came to us were due to whether the vowelized script was included in the counting or not. Different readings could also result in a different count, or whether the basmalla was included as part of the suras or not. All the numbers are very close, except in ibn Masud's count. Clearly in that case, a copyist error reported some 40.000 consonants and 500 word differences with the other counts. Had such a Quran been in circulation the Muslim word would have known it, even more so al-Hajjaj and his partisans who had every reason to discredit it.
In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"
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.
