In answer to the video "Countering Muslim Claims, Episode 4: The Preservation of the Quran"
Abu Bakr's collection, as stated earlier was assembled on loose parchments. It was not compiled in book form and reproduced, up to the time of Uthman. It was meant for safekeeping so as to ensure the availability of a complete and approved written testimony to the Quran. Also, AbuBakr's collection was not meant as a standard by which people should refer to in their recital. And so, until the time of Uthman, people kept using their personal codices and ways of recital. Under Abu Bakr' caliphate, Muslim land had not yet expanded beyond the Peninsula, a territory where people were already familiar with the proper reading and recitation of the Quran. However with the rapid expansions to new lands and people under Umar then Uthman, the complete Uthmanic text, properly ordered and rewritten according to the new rasm (more on that point later), was sent to various provinces along with a memorizer to demonstrate the proper reading.
Uthman did so under his caliphate upon receipt of the very first report about variant recitations in the provinces. As already stated, the differences were dialectical and in the manners of vocalization; and this is what the reporter, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who was sent on a campaign to Azerbaidjan had noticed on his return march. A plan to tacle the issue was put in place the same year. It is to be noted, recital variations had already been detected and addressed by the previous caliph who had rebuked ibn Masud for accepting to teach in the Hudhail dialect to accommodate some people of Iraq. But by Uthman's time, the variations were more widespread given the expansion of the Muslim empire.
Again, this process of proper Quranic education and memorization of the far provinces had already started under Umar the previous caliph who had been entrusted with Abubakr's compilation. Umar sent teachers that established schools in Kufa, Basra, Syria out of which came 100s of students and future teachers would come out from. The reason that prompted Uthman's Quran project, and Abubakr's before him, is thus very different than having to put a canon together from among conflicting traditions each claiming to be the divine truth.
This was the case with Christianity's competing sects like the Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, proto-orthodox (named as such because they were the ones that eventually were adopted by the state) each insisting that they correctly upheld the teachings of Jesus. All were in competition to become the rightful, officially endorsed version.
Uthman's collection was therefore not a new one nor the first, but the second based on Abu Bakr's compilation that was in Hafsa's hands. A lesser known, but complimentary narration suggests that Uthman, prior to requesting Abu Bakr's compilation that was in Hafsa's hands, first commissioned the compilation of a mushaf based on primary, independent sources, including the companions' parchments as well as all material he could gather from Aisha. Only then did he compare that compilation to Abubakr's that was in Hafsa's hands. Both versions agree to Hafsa's suhuf playing a crucial role in the final authentication of Uthman's mushaf. This secondary narration adds even more strength to the Quran's authenticity as we now have a double compilation effort from 2 different sources (Abu bakr, then Uthman) 10 years appart, each agreeing with one another.
Besides spelling mistakes or omissions which are known and documented, the written parts of the Quran originally disseminated among the Muslims confirmed one another. Among those anecdotal spelling mistakes which were detected, hence irrelevant to the process of transmission which is primarily oral, the hadith speak of Uthman asking Ubayy ibn Kaab to check the correct spelling of taghut which was found to be written sometimes with an elongated alef. Uthman then returned the original to Hafsa, further showing that no difference whatsoever existed with Uthman's compilation otherwise he would have simply destroyed Hafsa's copy, as he did with other imperfect copies later on.
According to some reports, he even destroyed his own copy that pre-dated his compilation
"I too had a copy of the Quran but I erased it and am content to rely on this copy".
What further corroborates that Uthman's compilation did not differ from the scattered writings left by the prophet, then collected by Abu Bakr a few month after the prophet's death, is the fact that up to this day, the Uthmani script allows the preservation of all the approved recitations going back to the prophet.
In answer to the video "Countering Muslim Claims, Episode 4: The Preservation of the Quran"
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.
The revelation of the Quran was a long and gradual process, explicitly meant, among other things at solidifying it in the believers' hearts 28:51, as a sign of Allah's pledge to secure it and preserve it. This process continued until very shortly before the prophet's death. He did not know when he would die, as affirmed in the Quran itself 7:188,46:9 although he had the feeling that Gabriel's double recitation of the entire Quran, instead of the usual single review a year, was an indication of his approaching end. Another indication was the total victory of Islam in the Peninsula, marked by the conquest of Mecca. God favoured His prophet by telling him to seek forgiveness as the sign of victory manifests, so as the ensure him a honourable station in the hereafter, and teaching the Muslims through him they should not feel complacent in terms of righteousness because of worldly success
110:1-3"When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest, And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes, Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance".
Because he did not know his exact time of death, he could not have commanded the compilation himself while the possibility was still open for new revelation to be inserted among the previous ones, in a location within the existing text that was between his hands. The prophet, being simply the conveyer of the message, kept on communicating what was revealed to him. So long as he was alive, the descent of revelation was still a possibility, given his function as a reformer and teacher. It is his death that signified the end of revelation. It did happen, as with Moses or Muhammad, that long intervals separated 2 revelations, but never did God remove revelation completely from his messengers long before their death.
Neither did the prophet know where a revelation had to be placed until the divine order would be given
75:17"Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it".
According to Ibn Abbas, the prophet didnt even know when a sura would end until he would receive the bismillah formula. Gabriel did not just oversee the correct recitation, but also the collecting together of the various written parts as stated in the verse. Ibn Abi’l-‘Aas, one of the scribes, describes how he once witnessed the phenomenon
“I was sitting with the Messenger of Allaah when he fixed his gaze on something, then lowered his gaze until he was almost looking at the ground, then he gazed at something. He said, ‘Jibreel came to me and told me to put this aayah (he recited 16:90) in this place in this sura".
Just as he was commanded from on high, the prophet in turn would supervise the placement of verses, passages and suras in specific places, within the already existing text. Uthman himself in a statement reflects the Quranic doctrine of divine arrangement of the Quran. When ibn Al Zubayr told him
"This verse, which is in Surat a/ Baqarah, 'Those who die and leave wives behind ... without turning them out,' has been abrogated by another verse. Why then do you write it (in the Qur'an)? 'Uthman said, 'Leave it (where it is), 0 son of my brother, for I will not shift anything of it (i.e., the Qur'an) from its original position".
As a side note, No report attributed to the prophet exists identifying the final revelation. The various opinions that came to us are those of companions and their successors, giving their ijtihad. Not every single companion was present every time revelation descended. Days or months could pass before the information circulated everywhere. When certain reports speak of last verse, this "last" is determined by context for example in a discussion on abrogation some argued that such and such a verse came last and thus cannot be abrogated
("The people of Al-Kufah differed concerning this Verse: "And whoever kills a believer intentionally." So I went to Ibn 'Abbas and asked him, and he said: 'It was revealed among the last of what was revealed, and nothing of it was abrogated after that.'")
other narrations spoke of the last verse in the sense of latest group of revelations, as in the case of ayaat ul riba 2:275-2:280
("One of the last verses to be revealed was the verse on riba")
as is similarly meant for 9:11
("It was narrated that Anas bin Malik said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Whoever departs this world with sincerity towards Allah..This is confirmed in the Book of Allah, in one of the Last Verses to be revealed, where Allah says: "But if they repent...")
or last revealed about a particular issue as in the case of 4:176
("Narrated Al-Bara' bin 'Azib: The last verse revealed about the decease who left no descendants or ascendants...")
The majority opinion is that 2:281 was last to be revelade overall. It is implicitly understood based on a narration that the prophet Muhammad died a few days later.
This gradual process solidified the Quran in the believers' hearts 28:51, as a sign of Allah's pledge to secure it and preserve it. Consequently the Prophet would memorize each verse as it was revealed, recite it to the "Scribes of the Revelation" (kuttab al-wahy) who would write it down immediately, in the manner of prophets of old. Jeremiah for instance dictated his prophecies to his disciple Baruch son of Neriah, when God commanded him
Jer30:1"Write for you the words that I have spoken to you, on a scroll"
Jer36:4"And Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote from Jeremiah's mouth all the words of the Lord that He had spoken to him, on a roll of a book".
The prophet Jeremiah was literate and also wrote a scroll by himself Jer51:60.
Uthman stated
"It was customary with the messenger of Allah that when a portion of different chapters was revealed to him, and when any verse was revealed, he would call one of those persons who used to write the Holy Quran and say to him: Write this verse in the chapter where such and such verses occur".
So although the prophet did not and could not have compiled the Quran himself, yet by reviewing with the memorizers the revelations in his, and their hands, and supervising the writing and placement of every new revelation, he made sure that once his life would come to an end, his followers would have a complete, structured and authentic Quran they would be able to assemble into a book. The difficulty for his followers would consist in gathering the Quran in its twofold transmission form so as to corroborate the one with the other; oral first and foremost, and then textual from all available loose materials on which it was written, such as palm-leaves, bones, parchments etc which were not even all available in one and the same place.
Despite this monumental task, there never was disagreement as to the sequence of verses in any recitation
“I am going to leave with you two heavy burdens. The first of them is the Book of Allah: in it is the true guidance and the light. Therefore, hold fast to it.” Then he (the Prophet) prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he said: “And my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household".
As a side note the second part of the hadith comes in the context of a group of soldiers' harsh and unwarranted disrespect of Ali, the prophet's cousin and son in law, at the location of Ghadir.
That double security system; textual/oral had preserved the Quran so well, that the Muslims did not immediately feel the need of collecting and compiling it into a book after the prophet's death. After all the Quran, by its very definition is a "recitation" meaning a primarily oral phenomenon in a traditionally oral society. This security assurance however did not last for long. A few months following the death of the prophet, this double security system was compromised. Abu Bakr ordered the collection following the loss of reciters on the day of Yamamah as authentically and strongly supported by the Islamic history, then handed it down to Umar who left it to Hafsa.
Even at that point when Muslims felt the need to secure the written Quran, and when it was achieved, it neither diminished nor discouraged the process of memorization, so much so that even today Muslims can count in their ranks thousands of huffaz. Just as the prophet greatly encouraged the act of memorizing the Quran, after him, Memorizers were held in high esteem by the people.
Some women even asked to be taught the Quran instead of receiving their dower of marriage as reported in (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasai, al Taj). The Prophet used to recite different passages from the revealed text while leading the daily prayers and declared the process of memorising the Book an act of great virtue, in countless traditions. The phenomenon reached a point that some Companions went to the extreme of reciting the whole book in one night. However, when the Prophet was informed, he asked them not to seal the Quran in less than three days or a week. (Al Nasai, al Musnad).
Many other traditions show the constant encouragement from the prophet to take care, write down, memorize and transmit the Quran to all members of the society men, women and even children.
So many of the later-generation Muslims emulated their predecessors in memorising the entire Quran and the number of huffaz increased from generation to generation from an estimated 40 after the prophet's death to hundreds in the next generation and the number continued to swell until now more than 1400 years later we can count hundreds of thousands across the globe with some reciters as young as 10 years old. One cannot but see in this phenomenon, the realisation of the prophecy made 1400 years ago
54:17"And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will mind?".
The contemporaries of Muhammad proudly preserved the poems and speeches of the preIslamic era so it would be inconcievable for these same people to be careless regarding their personal copies of the great Book whose laws they proclaimed, for which they had staked their lives, left their homes, spent their wealth, abandoned their families and children.
In answer to the video "Countering Muslim Claims, Episode 4: The Preservation of the Quran"
The Quran challenges its opponents to find discrepancies in it, or to produce similar verses or suras meaning that these suras were there in the public hands. 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 an ongoing process till this day. 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 to take place 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 independant 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.
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 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.
But this phenomenon 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.
In answer to the video "Comparing the Deaths of Nabeel Qureshi and Muhammad"
Assuming the poison story to be true, why didnt God's prophet die on the spot with those who ate the poisonned meal. Our opponents will keep on scratching their heads about this. Instead he lived on for years, fasted every year in the scorching desert heat, fulfilled all his duties of statesman, army commander, husband, counselor and friend, and conquered Mecca. He destroyed the idols with his own hands and fulfilled every prophecy made at the beginning of his call.
What the opponents need to realize is that the reason he did not die then, is because God didnt allow the prophet to die until his mission was accomplished.
5:67"O Apostle, deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people"
Muhammad died a natural death and he didnt even need to appeal to Christ in order to neutralize any type of injested poison as embarrassingly proposed by the Greek writers of the Gospels Mk16:18. After all Christians do believe in their potential in performing even greater miracles (Greek "erga") than Jesus Jn14:12.
God was definitely supporting His prophet after he ate the poisoned meal, just as He supported him before despite the difficulties and attempts at his life. He was not immidiately put to death or disallowed to continue his mission and transmitting his message after injesting the poison. The opposite would have been the case had he been a false prophet or had done something at that point heavily disapproved of by God, as forcefully warned in the Quran would instantly, not progressively, happen to him 69:45-47. This defeated the "test" that the Jewess desired to make the prophet go through, as it says in one version of the report that she wanted to kill him with the poison
"Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it".
The effect of poison as intended by the one using it is immidiate or very short term death of the victim, as happenned to one companion that ate the meal at that occasion with the prophet. The objective however of immidiate death or harm was defeated in regards the prophet.
It isnt uncommon in Jewish history to attempt poisoning a prophet sent to them. That is what they did to the prophet Jeremiah's food. In Jer11:19 it lit. says
"Let us destroy his food with wood"
ie Let us put poison into his food. This Jewish woman that poisoned the prophet's meal and his companion wanted to see
"if you were a Prophet, then Allaah would tell you about it, and if you were not a Prophet the people would be rid of you".
This as a side note bellies the unfounded allegation in anti-Islamic circles that the woman offered the poisonned meal in revenge for the killing of her family. She was testing his prophethood. So the prophet took a bite and sensed the poison, and immidiately said to all those taking part in the meal to withdraw their hands from it, although most had already eaten from it at that point. It was unfortunately too late for one of his companions who died from it. Miraculously, that companion was the only casualty of the incident, and this allowed the unveiling of an intricate outcome and lesson from the event. The prophet then confronted the culprit. This woman thought that a prophet claimant dying in such circumstances would expose him as a liar but the opposite happenned: his companion died and Muhammad lived on until
"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion".
The JEwess Zaynab bint al harith was later forgiven by the prophet. Other versions state that when Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’roor died as a result of the effects of this food, then the prophet executed her as a qisaas punishment, while others yet like ibn Kathir maintain that she even converted to Islam, seeing that the prophet passed her "falsification" test and was thus left alone. She initially approached the prophet with the meal after the treaty negotiations with the Jewish leadership of Khaybar had ended.
In such circumstances it would have been against decorum and basic sensitivity to refuse it based on suspicion. In ancient times, especially in rural cultures till this day, refusal to share a meal when the host clearly displays his peaceful intentions is a sign of treachery and mistrust. The Quran relates how Abraham was fearful of his guests that refused the food he offered them despite his clear hospitality 11:69-70. There were no means to the prophet Muhammad by which to chemically test the meal and verify his suspicion. His detractors wouldnt have missed this opportunity to charge him with accusing an innocent woman without proof. Neither did he behave like the kings and leaders of times past by having someone taste the food before he ate nor would it have ever been in his thought and character to have forced the woman to eat it herself or forced any of the Jews to eat it to prove that it was not poisoned. In accordance with his lofty character and prophetic status, he wanted to show that he was willing to trust the Jews, hoping that, perhaps, they will be guided. He did not yield to suspicion, even with the enemy. Yet, by eating, he did not show any lack of wisdom because showing suspicions without proof is not the way to build a relationship. And the prophet, in accordance with the Quran's commands was never one to be inconsiderate of others or sceptical of their inner condition. Especially in the context of warfare, the good treatment of captives, as the prophet was here exemplifying, is expected to soften their hearts towards Islam. But if they act treacherously despite the Muslims' honourability, they will be overpowered just as they had been 8:70-71.
What is interesting with Bishr is that he was the only one, together with the prophet, that sensed the poison during the meal. Although the prophet spat out the morsel in his mouth after briefly chewing on it, Bishr, seeing him beginning to eat, trusted his judgement and swallowed his bite prior to the prophet's reaction. The remaining Muslims did not sense the poison and started eating, just like Bishr, trusting the prophet's judgement, until everyone was told to stop. This is where something strange occurs. Bishr, according to most reports dies instantly, as well as a dog that ate a morsel of the poisonned meal. The prophet lives on but suffers occasionally from the effects of the poison while it had no consequence on the remaining Muslims. Bishr's martyrdom revealed the deadly nature of the poison. The prophet's sickness proved the entire meal was toxic, not just Bishr's portion. The remaining Muslims' immunity was miraculous, given that the whole meal was poisoned. Had only Bishr or only the prophet been afflicted, one could have argued that a specific part of the meal was poisoned or that a specific individual was particularly sensitive to the poison. If the prophet was safeguarded and that someone else, together with Bishr were afflicted, someone could have said the prophet was simply lucky. The Prophet's sickness was necessary to prove that no human being will be allowed to put an end to his life, despite being clearly poisoned, until his mission is accomplished. The manner in which these events unfolded show that God was in full control.
The poison story, assuming it happenned, is actually just 1 of the many attempts at the life of God's prophet, keeping also in mind all the battles in which he himself took part against the rejecters, but never did God allow his messenger to die before the end of his mission, like Moses wasnt allowed to die through all his jihad battles until his mission was fulfilled. The poison certainly did injure him and cause him sustained pain, but nowhere does it say or hint that it was the direct cause of death.
The poison damage on his body was just one of many scars the prophet carried with him until his deathbed, whether due to the years of hardship, starvation and persecution or the years of battle. Despite all that, he still lived beyond the average life expectancy of his common folk and only once his mission was completed. He saw with his very eyes every single prophecy made in the earliest years of prophethood fulfilled, cleansed God's chosen and blessed land of Mecca and restaured it to its original Abrahamic purpose.
Neither Moses nor Aaron, according to the convoluted HB, even get to fulfill their life mission of entering the promised land, despite the battles they led. They are suddenly dispatched from the narrative for the most ridiculous reasons. Moses was condemned by God for some misdeed and put to death while his
"eyes were not weak nor his strength gone".
His heartfelt prayer was denied
Deut3"Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan..But YHWH was furious with me on your behalf and would not listen to me. YHWH said to me, “Enough! Never speak to Me of this matter again!"
If anything, the argument of sudden death as a sign of divine disapproval, a charge misapplied to the prophet Muhammad in relation to the poison story, fits instead the biblical Moses, put to death at the highlight of his prophetic career and while he was in full health. Even if, in the worst case, Muhammad's death is directly correlated to the Quranic warning in 69:45-47 not to falsely attribute a statement to God, then it still means the prophecy came true, that Muhammad was physically prevented from altering it and that the Quran is the authentic, preserved and protected word of the Creator. The verse says his hand will be seized the moment he tries doing so, then killed. The words imply even a minuscule uttering in God's name. It would be impossible for him to walk around making lengthy speeches up. That is why the verse comes in a passage where Allah stresses the divine origin of the Quran, and then states the hypothetical scenario, following by a reiteration of its veracity. But assuming for argument's sake Muhammad at some point lied and was killed by God, this must then mean that all he previously spoke in God's name, was true revelation uttered by a true prophet.
Just for arguments' sake, even if the prophet Muhammad had died from the delayed effects of the poison, this is certainly not an argument against his prophethood, not according to Zaynab bint al harith's own HB criteria for the identification of prophets as outlined in Deut18, nor in light of the Bible's own reports of the constant assaults, some succesful and others not, against true prophets' lives. As a final note it is ironic that those trying to cast doubts on the truthfulness of Muhammad's prophethood by misrepresenting this story are mainly if not only Christians, who firmly believe in the Greek Testament and its depiction of Jesus' ignoble, humiliating and accursed end which probably no true prophet, even those murdered by the sinful Israelites, ever were inflicted with. What does that do to Jesus' credibility as a man sent by God, judging by those critics' own standards?
In answer to the video "Answering Islam 12: What Does the Quran Say about the Bible?"
I will get to that verse at the end of this explanation.
The Quran uses the term Muslims to all those that voluntarily submit to the divine will, whether that will manifested through Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. When those labelling themselves Jews, Christians or any other name, persist in following corrupted spiritual notions alien to that pattern of the prophets, despite receiving proper explanations of their errors and those of their predecessors, they are termed followers of "nothing good". They arent even upholding their own scriptures in sincerity
5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Torah and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord".
The Torah and Injeel attest to
"that which is revealed to you from your Lord"
ie the Quran.
To reject the Quran, a revelation interconnected with the previous ones and coming from the same Source 6:91,26:196,29:46, which in addition guards, protects, revives the pattern of the prophets, therefore means to deny their own scriptures that attest to its veracity, more particularly of the one that carried and propagated it
6:20"Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons; (as for) those who have lost their souls, they will not believe".
Those on the other hand who recognized the Quran upon hearing it as attesting to the truth of their scriptures and the pattern of the prophets are the
3:113-115"upright party; they recite Allah's communications in the nighttime and they adore (Him). They believe in Allah and the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and they strive with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good. And whatever good they do, they shall not be denied it, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil)".
They were greatly devoted to their own scriptures prior to the coming of Islam. They sincerely followed the truth therein, without bias, instead of the conjectures of their corrupt leadership, nor their personal low desires in exchange of worldly benefits. It is only natural then that when they
5:83"hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth)"."
They
3:199"believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah; they do not sell the signs of Allah for a small price; these it is that have their reward with their Lord".
This verse 3:199 stresses the obligation in believing in the Quran for them to be believers in their own scriptures, as it confirms the prophecies in their books and restores the truth. This does not need happening overnight and they might seek further information, study and knowledge to further confirm the initial gut instinct that made them recognize the truth of the Quran.
They are mainly the learned men among the Israelites 26:197,29:47 firm in knowledge as well as those among the common masses who adhere to their scriptures with sincerity and the best of their ability 4:162. They are those who overcame the stiff-neckdness and arrogance of their people, effortlessly and naturally recognizing the truth 46:10. Same is the case with the learned and austere and sincere believers among the Christians 5:82-4, and who will consequently be rewarded appropriately 28:52-4.
The Quran says that
3:110,28:52"those whom We gave the Book before it, they are believers in it".
It is a testimony to the conversions of Jews and Christians in Muhammad's lifetime and as a prophecy witnessed today. The image of God literally giving them the Book is a praise of their merit, a metonym for them having been granted wisdom and knowledge, because of their willingness and openness for guidance. To this effect the Quran quotes them testifying to their entire submission to their revealed scriptures, even before the revelation of the Quran
28:53"surely we were submitters (lit. Muslims) before this".
As stated above, the principle of being a "Muslim", voluntarily subservient to the divine will, is a feature of the rightly guided prior to the term becoming the sole prerogative of Muhammad's followers. These are the ones to be sought for confirmation of the Quran's veracity, among the followers of previous scriptures 10:94. There is a reason why it calls them "those that read the book", in contrast to others among them, pictured as donkeys that carry a load while totally unaware of its contents 62:5. The verse 10:94 is not telling Muslims to seek further knowledge about some supposed incomplete information in the Quran. It speaks of doubt as regards the Quranic statements being true.
The Quran repeatedly points to all scriptures of the prophets coming from the same original source, and having the same common thread of truth running throughout them. If anyone is in doubt as regards the statements of the Quran being true, then he may seek corroborating information in the previous scriptures
"But if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers".
The context is directly linked to information concerning the Israelites and their Egyptian bondage, as in 17:101. Similarly in 16:43,21:7 it tells the prophet's opponents to go and seek confirmation among the "people of the reminder", as regards the veracity that messengers were always sent as humans. Here again, as it does in 10:94 and elsewhere, the Quran uses a powerful image to depict the sincere and learned ones among the followers of previous scriptures, who should be sought for confirmation of a Quranic statement. They are those who have safeguarded whatever remains of truth of their scriptures and tradition, remembering it firmly and passing it on truthfully, in contrast to those among them who threw their scriptures behind their backs as if they were unaware of their contents 2:101.
In answer to the video "Answering Islam 12: What Does the Quran Say about the Bible?"
The corruption of the HB and NT is a historical fact. This corruption is not dictated upon what the Quran says, i.e. it is an objective reality. The Quran simply confirms this objective reality. Even if, for argument's sake we assume that the Quran endorses the Bible's authenticity, despite it speaking of the corrupt writings of the Jewish scribes and the singular Injil of Jesus, which has nothing to do with the mutliple Gospels and other Greek writings assembled into the NT, then there is still the inescapable notion of the Quran superseding and abrogating previous revealed, authentic laws and scriptures.
The corruption of the Bible is nothing but the natural outcome of the moral degeneration of the Bani Israel, their heedlessness and carelessness in matters of religion, confirming Moses' predictions Deut31:25-29, Jeremiah's and other prophets' accusations, their lamentations Isa48:8. When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense.
This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what is contemporary to it in terms of revealed truths, whether available in oral or writen tradition, such as the Torah and Injil. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions.
It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed parts of the Torah available to him. He confirmed the truth, by exposing the falsehood, both in the scriptures and traditions of the Bani Israil. Those among them that rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah which he confirmed.
Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfills. In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran. According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam. Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures. That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another.
This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations. It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons"..
That is also why the minority comentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of
Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him".
But as attested in history, not all of them remained obdurate
3:199"And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning".
These are the righteous among the followers of previous scriptures and who remained truthful to their Books 2:121,3:113,4:162,7:159,17:107-9,28:52-54. A subtle aspect worth noting in 2:121 is that since the righteous among them are mentioned, the expression used is "We have given them the Book" not "They were given the Book" conveying the idea that it is God who gave it to them and guided them on account of their righteousness, contrary to those who were given the book without identification of the giver or instructor. This pattern is present throughout the Quran and is actually one of the many examples of its linguistic precision. This is why the people of the book are never told to reject their scriptures in 5:68,69 but rather to stand by not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Quran, to which the previous scriptures naturally lead to. This has been pointed to in the words
"and that which is revealed to you from your Lord".
Because it is the "Muhaymin" of their revelations, the guardian of the truth which God himself has pledged to preserve unlike any holy book, the reminder of the pure way of Ibrahim. As to those who would claim, and still do, that they only believe that which has been revealed to them then the Quran answers them that even Prophets that came from among their own people, preaching adherence to their own books were killed by these men, as Jesus put it Mk12:1-12,Matt23:31-37. This charge was levelled against them in the earliest Meccan revelations such as 37:37 before the interraction with them in Medina.
In summary, the passage 5:43-68, states the following; 1. God reveals the Torah. 2. God then reveals the Gospel, and the Bani israel are required to judge by it. They cannot ignore it, despite the fact that they have the Torah. Further, this rejection would be even more grievous considering the fact that the Gospel confirms the Torah as a Book of God. 3. Now God has revealed the Quran, and the people must judge by it, irrespective of the fact that the Gospel and Torah are present, even though in their corrupted forms. The Quran states that the new revelation confirms the Torah and Gospel and guards them.
That is why the whole passage ends in 5:69 with a statement that success in the Hereafter is independant of any appellation, so long as one is obedient to God's revelations throughout time.
Rejecting the last Revelation does not only result in rejecting their own scriptures. It also entails rejection of Gabriel who has revealed it to the Prophet's heart by Allah's Command, not by his own wish. So they were ultimately disbelieving in God
6:33,2:98"Whoever is the enemy of Gabriel for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's Command, verifying that which is before it, and guidance and good news for the believers. Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Gabriel and Michael - so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers".
To reject any messenger, as is here stated concerning Moses against whom the Israelites rebelled 44:19 is equal to rejecting the One that sent him. Similarily, Gabriel is one of Allah's honored servants, just like Michael and others; they have no authority except to follow and obey the Divine Commands. That is why the Quran speaks of the belief in the carriers and transmitters of revelation -angels or human messengers- as an article of faith 2:177,285.
The verse 2:98 exposes another side of the Israelites' rejection. Their hatred and grudge against Muhammad's prophethood took them to the extent of inventing the tale that Gabriel was an enemy of theirs because he was the Angel of destruction. This in their eyes was among the justified reasons for rejecting Islam. Had the angelic messenger been Michael, who brings prosperity, they would have believed. Whether Islam was true or false, this argument was ludicrous. Angelic messengers, as corroborated in their own books, have no free will and act only according to God's directives. They do not willingly take sides, much less among humans.
That opposition to God's envoys, in reality is due to a dislike of the message they bring 38:8. This is exemplified in the opposition the prophet Muhammad had to face. His opponents tried to make him compromise the message in exchange of their alliegance, which he of course never did.
Belief in all prophets equally is an article of faith 3:84. To reject one is to reject all, considering that, besides all of them coming with the same tenets of faith and refering to the same One God, all of them, except for the first prophet sent to mankind, claimed spiritual descendancy from a line of prophets
26:105,25:37"And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the messengers (plural), We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust".
Any distinction or rejection of any of them is a denial of all of them and the rejection of the very One who sent them 2:136-7 an act of rebellion severly condemned 4:150-2. This is rooted in the principle that all revelations are one in essence
46:9,21:7-10,29:47,4:163"Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh, and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and Isa and Ayub and Yunus and Haroun and Sulaiman and We gave to Dawood Psalms".
It isn't simply believing in Muhammad that entails faith and one cannot be a Muslim, claiming that it is sufficient to believe in him. All Prophets represent the will of the Lord and must be equally believed.
In answer to the video "Answering Islam 12: What Does the Quran Say about the Bible?"
The discontinuation of the line of prophethood is among the reasons that necessitated the protection of the final revelation to mankind, a revelation containing all previous books 98:2-3 as here reflected in the declaration of faith
2:177"believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets".
3:23,5:44,4:44,51"Have you not considered those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They buy error and desire that you should go astray from the way".
This indicates that the Torah and Injil were not the final words of God, but portions of one Book 6:156. The Quran in fact uses that established pattern of continuous revelation, to comfort the prophet, telling him that should his adressees disbelieve in that same pattern that is now bestowed upon him, then let him now, people preceded him that wholeheartedly believed in it. Further, their rejection does not compromise the honor and credibility of that lofty institution of prophethood. Instead of grieving, or even doubting, the prophet should follow the guidance of his predecessors who held fast by the revelation that came to them 6:84-90. All previous revelations are part of one Book called the Mother of the Book/umm al kitab which the Quran is also part of
43:4,13:39,2:236"and remember Allah's favour to you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book".
The previous revelations forecasted the final revelation in the form of the Quran 4:47. This draws attention to an important truth: all the revealed scriptures contain the same spiritual and moral principles. They cannot contradict eachother and their only differences reside in that they were made to conform to the language of the addressees
26:192-6"And most surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners, In plain Arabic language. And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".
The Quran then verifies the truth of these divine portions of the one Book and offers a clear global explanation of it
10:37,20:133"Has not there come to them a clear evidence of what is in the previous books?".
This is why it is said to be the Guardian and Arbitrer/Muhaymin and a clear explanation of THE Book (singular) of which past scriptures including the Quran are part of 5:48-9,10:37. This single scripture containing all past revelations as well as the Quran is said to be highly secure, purified and preserved, exalted and honored, inaccessible to evil interference and only between the hands of the most honourable custodians 26:193,56:77-80,80:13-16,81:19-21,88:22. It has been engraved in the lawh mahfuz/the preserved tablet 85:21-2, hence it being referred to in the opening verses of sura baqara as it is dhaalika al kitab/that book or writing, denoting distance through the pronoun, because its katb/writing is done in a far heavenly place. In contrast the Quran speaks of this/hadha al Quran denoting closeness because its recitation is being done in this world. Another instance of the Quran's surgical use of words.
The Quran, being from the same God and containing the same basic wisdom and truths of ancient scriptures 6:91,26:196,29:46 speaks highly about the Torah and Injeel. They are referred to as sources of mercy, wisdom, guidance and light 5:43,44,46,7:154,11:17,28:43,46:12 as well as criterions of truth and falsehood (furqan) clarifying all things 2:53,21:48,28:43,37:117. It even cites them sometimes as sources of guidance hand in hand with the Quran 28:48-9. Because again, they are never said to be totally corrupted. Read with the knowledge of the Quran, whose function is to be the muhaymin/protector and arbitrer, one can discern the guiding parts of previous oral and written traditions from the portion that were corrupted, either purposefully or through neglect.
In 46:12 it says the Torah came prior to the Quran, as a guide and mercy. It is this guiding and merciful aspect of the Torah that the statement musaddiqan/declaring true, refers to, not simply the Torah. It doesnt say declaring "it" true. This is seen by the rest of the verse, paralelling the guidance and mercy of the Torah with the Quran being a warner and giver of glad tidings. Again we see, the Quran only confirms the truthful aspects of past oral and written traditions, which the Quran never claims were entirely blotted out. This restricted aspect of the Quran's confirmation of the Torah is made clear in 6:154-7. The passage starts again with a praise of the Torah as being a book of mercy and guidance, followed by a parallel statement about the Quran, echoing stricly the merciful and guiding aspect of the Torah
"And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and be God-conscious that mercy may be shown to you".
The Torah contains many things that are neither guiding, nor sources of mercy, and other things that erroneous or even outright blasphemous about God and His prophets. The Quran does not confirm these things, and sometimes openly rejects them.
The Quran condemns only the people that write the scriptures and manipulate it with their own hands. This is one of the miraculous qualities of the Quran, where it never assaults the Torah or Injeel in the context of corruption, but it lays blame always on the scribes. The Torah and Injeel are revealed by God, and considering the Torah and Injeel are from the same source as the one who revealed the Quran, it is only natural that the Quran never attacks the text per say.
The Quran is therefore the official preserver of the Book and this means that if something is claimed to be in the Book but the Quran says otherwise, then it is not from the Book. If the Quran is silent then it may or may not be of the Book and if the Quran approves it then it certainly is part of the Book. Furthermore, an important Quranic axiom is that every fragment of revelation is fully revelation. A single word or verse of the Quran is called kitab and Quran. So is the case with Torah and Injil. A single genuine passage of any of these 2 revelations can be termed kitab and Torah or Injil. That is why when it urges the Jews to stand by the Torah and the Christians to stand by the Injil, it does not necessitate the totality of these books is endorsed by the Quran.
A long time ago, the prophet Muhammad explained how to approach the previous scriptures and traditions
“Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them. Say: We have faith in Allah, in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes of Israel, in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims surrendering to Him (2:136)”.
This hadith encapsulates the notion of muhaymin/arbitrer. Muslims unambiguously believe in what was revealed to the prophets 4:136. However, Muslims do not believe nor reject the current scriptures and traditions of the people of the book. This is because by rejecting them, they could inadvertently reject an authentic remnant of the teachings of the prophets. By believing in them on the other hand would carry the risk of accepting things that were never sent by God, nor approved by the prophets. The perfect way for Muslims to maintain the middle ground and not commit any faulty judgement would therefore be to hold fast by the Muhaymin/the arbitrer that has preserved the truth of the previous revelations. This reflects even in the attitude of the classical exegetes. They exhibited no interest in the Jews and Christians of whom they must have had some contemporary knowledge. With very few exceptions such as Ibn Kathir and Zamakshari, we find no reference to the varieties of Jewish and Christian belief and practices.
After declaring its status as the Guardian and Watcher, the Quran states that those legitimate differences between the scriptures that are not the subject of human corruption, were because the laws were subject to their respective time frames
"for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way".
Allah could have prescribed one and the same Law for all, making all of humanity into a single nation but He did not do so for many good reasons. One of these reasons is to test people whether they obey or not what is given to them. Those people, who understand the real nature and spirit of the Divine Way and the position of the regulations in it and are not prejudiced, will recognize and accept the Truth in whatever form it comes.
Such people will never hesitate to submit to the new regulations sent by Allah to replace the former ones. To demonstrate the unbiased nature of the Quranic message, it even tells its prophet in a hypothetical scenario that should a revelation be sent from God superseding both the Quran and the Torah, then Muhammad should be the first to follow it and nothing else 28:48-9.
This verse isnt arguing from the angle of authenticity, that the new scripture supersedes the previous due to them being flawed. Neither does it give an indication as to whether one of the 2 is partially flawed while the other is pristine. The verse is arguing from the viewpoint of unconditional obedience to God, regardless of the level of authenticity of the current scriptures. Those, who do not understand the true spirit of the Way, but consider the regulations and their details alone to be the Way and who have become static and prejudiced because of their own additions to it, will reject every new thing that comes from Allah to replace what they already possess
5:48"and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed"
22:67"therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter".
But the unbiased, who understand that God's guidance is indiscriminate, not only accept the new revelation but also
13:36"rejoice in that which has been revealed to you".
They read the book 2:121"as it ought to be read". Consequently they cannot but recognize it as the truth 4:162,5:83.
Just like when the Bani Israil were ordered to follow the Injeel when it was revealed, the same proclamation is made regarding the Quran, now that it has been revealed. It guides them out of the labyrinths of assumptions and conjectures
27:76"Surely this Quran declares to the children of Israel most of what they differ in".
It brings them back to the path they deviated from, when they failed upholding both the Torah and the Injeel 5:66. The only way they can rightly say that they are following their own scriptures is by believing in the Quran as well because these revelations are interconnected:
5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people".
5:69"If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil."
2:89-93"..but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers. Evil is that for which they have sold their souls-- that they should deny what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases..And when it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that, while it is the truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's Prophets before if you were indeed believers? And most certainly Musa came to you with clear arguments, then you took the calf (for a god) in his absence and you were unjust. And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said: We hear and disobey. And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief Say: Evil is that which your belief bids you if you are believers"
