Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
tonnyj

Clearification Please

Recommended Posts

The point number two doesn't say that newer copies which had been corrected are more reliable than the mother manuscript. It says that newer copies which have been verified by checking them against the mother manuscript are better than newer copies which have not been checked against the mother manuscript. I hope that clarifies it a bit.

 

Ahhh this makes sense. Yes.

 

Yes, the preservation of the Qur'an was serious. However, the variants are not errors. You should re-read that part of the Azami's book. They are valid differences that were taught by the Prophet (pbuh). These variants are still preserved today. For example, I have a copy of the Qur'an based on the copy of Madinah at home - they are in print - along with the Qur'an that is normally used.

 

Right because even the people who held the original Mushafs with valid differences kept each Mushaf separately. But I thought that the Uthman Mushaf is the only authoritative source for the Quran. If people keep Mushafs with valid differences - isn't there technically differences between the Mushafs? Shouldn't it be all in correspondence with one another like the Mushaf of Uthman, Kufa and Basra?

 

There is no mention of God making it subservient to the Earth or itself, i.e. the Sun being subservient itself. What it means that the Sun and the Moon have been made subservient to run for their specific term.

 

God made them subservient to us, i.e. for our benefit, not that we command the Sun or anything:

 

It is Allah Who has subjected the sea to you, that ships may sail through it by His command, that ye may seek of his Bounty, and that ye may be grateful.

 

And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth: Behold, in that are Signs indeed for those who reflect. (45:12-13)

 

Yes this makes sense. Man I love the Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
As-salamu alaikum

 

I would like to ask the rest of the brothers and sisters to cut brother tonnyj some slack. He is definately a sincere Muslim who is seeking the Truth. So, if he phrases some question a bit awkwardly, don't hold it against him. He has been consistently asking questions (even before he converted) and he definately is putting the work in studying.

 

Thanks brother Younes. Its always good asking you questions for some insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right because even the people who held the original Mushafs with valid differences kept each Mushaf separately. But I thought that the Uthman Mushaf is the only authoritative source for the Quran. If people keep Mushafs with valid differences - isn't there technically differences between the Mushafs? Shouldn't it be all in correspondence with one another like the Mushaf of Uthman, Kufa and Basra?

 

The Mushaf of Medina is also one of the Mushafs dispatched by Uthman (ra). In his book Azami compares the Medinan Mushaf to the Mushaf in Uthman's personal possession. Actually all of the Mushafs, i.e the Kufan, Medinan, Basran, the one in Uthman's personal possession, are called the Uthmanic manuscript. Yes, there are differences but they are all Mushafs dispatched Uthman (ra) and all of them are preserved and in print. I think you need to reread Azami's book. Don't worry if you don't understand it the first time around - at least I didn't. It might take a few readings and some thinking to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will do. But I'm still skeptical about there being differences as authoritative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as I'm reading Uthman's Mushaf, its all good right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey 'War with me'

 

maybe I realized if I'm a baby then maybe you must be very knowledgeable indeed. Does this represent how knowledgeable you really are?

 

I m wondering what I said so knowledgeable....

 

May be my pleasant surprise of you joining this ummah got misinterpreted due to the heat of the other conversations..?Not sure.

 

That pic was only intended to show the sitting position.Cool down brother ,I did not insult you.

 

Even now,I m only happy for your reversion.

 

Assalamu alaikum warahmathullahi wabarakathuhu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh now it makes sense. The sitting position. Ok my bad sister, thanks for clearing it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, as long as I'm reading Uthman's Mushaf, its all good right?

 

As-salamu alaikum

 

Yes. Everybody reads the Uthmanic Mushaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay another question.

 

Im reading on page 88 when Uthman is making his first Mushaf using Hafsa's copy of the Suhuf.

 

"Al-Bara narrates,

 

So Uthman sent Hafsa a message stating, "Send us the Suhuf so that we may make perfect copies and then return the Suhuf back to you." Hafsa sent it to Uthman, who ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id al-As and Abdur-Rahman bin al-Harith bin Hisham to make duplicate copies. He told the three Quraishi men, "Should you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point regarding the Quran, write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Quran was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had prepared several copies Uthman returned to Suhuf to Hafsa."

 

Now after he has this Mushaf compiled with 12 Companions that oversee the task, Uthman asks for A'isha's copy of the Suhuf. On page 90 I read:

 

"Umar bib Shabba, narrating through Sawwar bin Shabib, reports:

 

Going in to see Ibn az-Zubar in a small group, I asked him why Uthman destroyed all the old copies of the Quran... He replied, "During Umar's reign, an excessively talkative man approached the Caliph and told him that the people were differing in their pronunciation of the Quran. Umar resolved therefore to collect all copies of the Quran and standerdise their pronunciation, ... During Uthman's reign this same man came to remind him of the issue, so Uthman commisioned [his independent] Mushaf. Then he sent me to [the Prophet's widow] A'isha to retrieve the parchments upon which the Prophet had dictated the Quran in its entirety..."

 

Okay, up to this point I kind of understand, but this raises a question. If Uthman was already compiling the Mushaf by using Hafsa's copy of the Suhuf, why would he need to use A'isha's copy of the Quran in its entirety, later on? Wouldn't it have been better to just use both A'isha's and Hafsa's copy of the Suhuf at the same time? Was there a reason why A'isha's copy was sought after later?

 

On page 91 it describes after Uthman retrieved A'isha's copy of the Suhuf, Uthman's copy had to be corrected where needed. So if Uthman copied off Hafsa and had differences with A'isha, what is the likelihood that Hafsa's and A'isha's copy had differences?

 

Out of all three during the time of the compilation, would A'isha's Suhuf been the actual authentic one out of the other 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 95 I read:

"Early copies of Uthman's Mushaf were largely consonantal, frequently dropping vowels and containing no dots,... These copies could be read erroneously in many different ways. In undertaking this second compilation, Uthman's main purpose was to eliminate all occasions for disputes in recitation; sending a Mushaf by itself, or with a reciter at liberty to devise any reading, was contrary to the unity Uthman sought to establish within the Populace..."

 

Now this is supposed to be a good thing that the Mushafs were consonantal heavy in the beginning, but when it came time for the second compilation, why was sending a reciter contrary to the unity Uthman sought after? Wouldn't it be in concordance with the unity he sought after?

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay another question.

 

Im reading on page 88 when Uthman is making his first Mushaf using Hafsa's copy of the Suhuf.

Now after he has this Mushaf compiled with 12 Companions that oversee the task, Uthman asks for A'isha's copy of the Suhuf. On page 90 I read:

Okay, up to this point I kind of understand, but this raises a question. If Uthman was already compiling the Mushaf by using Hafsa's copy of the Suhuf, why would he need to use A'isha's copy of the Quran in its entirety, later on? Wouldn't it have been better to just use both A'isha's and Hafsa's copy of the Suhuf at the same time? Was there a reason why A'isha's copy was sought after later?

 

The process of preparing the final Mushaf had different phases.

 

This is how it went:

 

Uthman (ra) prepares an independent Mushaf ----> He comapres this Mushaf with the parchments in Aisha's (ra) possession ----> THEN it is compared with the Suhuf in Hafsa's (ra) possession

 

The last comparison/check was done with the Suhuf in Hafsa's (ra) possession, not with Aisha's (ra). I hope this makes it clear. The reason why the parchments in Aisha's (ra) possession were wanted is that the Prophet (pbuh) had dictated the Qur'an upon these parchments.

 

I hope this answers the other two questions you asked about Aisha's (ra) and Hafsa's (ra) Suhuf.

 

On page 95 I read:

Now this is supposed to be a good thing that the Mushafs were consonantal heavy in the beginning, but when it came time for the second compilation, why was sending a reciter contrary to the unity Uthman sought after? Wouldn't it be in concordance with the unity he sought after?

 

Sending a reciter along with a Mushaf wasn't contrary to the unity that Uthman (ra) sought. BUT sending a reciter alone without a Mushaf OR a Mushaf without a recitor would have been.

 

I hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The process of preparing the final Mushaf had different phases.

 

This is how it went:

 

Uthman (ra) prepares an independent Mushaf ----> He comapres this Mushaf with the parchments in Aisha's (ra) possession ----> THEN it is compared with the Suhuf in Hafsa's (ra) possession

 

The last comparison/check was done with the Suhuf in Hafsa's (ra) possession, not with Aisha's (ra). I hope this makes it clear. The reason why the parchments in Aisha's (ra) possession were wanted is that the Prophet (pbuh) had dictated the Qur'an upon these parchments.

 

I hope this answers the other two questions you asked about Aisha's (ra) and Hafsa's (ra) Suhuf.

 

Ok but the chronological order I'm reading is Hafsa's Shuhuf sought after first, then Aisha's next. How should I regard this reading then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Muhsin Khan

So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost, (Surah 47:4)

 

There is no compulsion in to accept Islam right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And on the Day when those who disbelieve will be exposed to the Fire (it will be said to them): "Is this not the truth?" They will say: "Yes, By our Lord!" He will say: "Then taste the torment, because you used to disbelieve!" (Surah 46:34)

 

Isn't there somewhere in the Quran that states disbelievers will not see Allah but be dragged off on their face to the Hellfire? Is this passage saying Allah will show his face to disbelievers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok but the chronological order I'm reading is Hafsa's Shuhuf sought after first, then Aisha's next. How should I regard this reading then?

 

I think you are bit confused because it doesn't say that Hafsa's Suhuf were sought out first and then Aisha's. You need to read the chapter again. It says that Uthman prepares an independent Mushaf. Then he ask for the Suhuf in Aisha's possession to make a comparision. Then he asks for Hafsa's Suhuf for the final comparison.

 

I understand how it can be understood the way you understood it but you need to read the text carefully. It doesn't say that Hafsa's Suhuf were first used then Aisha. The text doesn't follow a linear chronological pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no compulsion in to accept Islam right?

 

Nobody is compelled to accept Islam and like it says in the text you quoted, until they become Muslims or come under your protection which means paying Jizyah as non-Muslims.

 

Isn't there somewhere in the Quran that states disbelievers will not see Allah but be dragged off on their face to the Hellfire? Is this passage saying Allah will show his face to disbelievers?

 

Yes, the Qur'an says that the disbelievers will be veiled from God and won't see Him at all and that they will dragged on their faces to Hell. The verse you quoted is definately not saying that God will show Himself to the disbelievers. What it says that God will show them the Hellfire - which He promised that disbelievers would enter if they disbelieved in this life. The disbelievers used to say that Hell doesn't exist, so that's why it says, "Isn't this the truth". One of the main themes of the Prophets' (pbuh) message after laa ilaaha illa Allah was the certainty of the Hereafter where people will go to Paradise or Hell. The disbelievers used to disbelieve in the Hereafter. For example, the Pagan Meccans used to think that there was no afterlife and no resurrection. That's why they are quoted in the Qur'an saying many times saying things like "We won't be resurrected", "this life is our only life and there is nothing after it", "Will we be raised after being dust" etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are bit confused because it doesn't say that Hafsa's Suhuf were sought out first and then Aisha's. You need to read the chapter again. It says that Uthman prepares an independent Mushaf. Then he ask for the Suhuf in Aisha's possession to make a comparision. Then he asks for Hafsa's Suhuf for the final comparison.

 

I understand how it can be understood the way you understood it but you need to read the text carefully. It doesn't say that Hafsa's Suhuf were first used then Aisha. The text doesn't follow a linear chronological pattern.

 

Okay I re-read the chapter and I notice that Uthman sent for Hafsa's Suhuf (pg 88) and then after that, he sought after Aisha's copy (pg 91), and then after that it was rechecked with Hafsa's copy once again (pg 93). Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And on the Day when those who disbelieve will be exposed to the Fire (it will be said to them): "Is this not the truth?" They will say: "Yes, By our Lord!" He will say: "Then taste the torment, because you used to disbelieve!" (Surah 46:34)

 

So when Allah says "Then taste the torment...", won't that be in present tense once the disbelievers die? So will they hear Allah instead of seeing Him then?

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody is compelled to accept Islam and like it says in the text you quoted, until they become Muslims or come under your protection which means paying Jizyah as non-Muslims.

 

Okay right. So is it because of self defense, that this action is acceptable? (Until they all embrace Islam?) So that once Muslims have resisted hindrance from the opposing party trying to have Muslims go stray - they are to defend themselves and now take over the opposition as retaliation?

 

Woe to every sinful liar,

 

Who hears the Verses of Allah (being) recited to him, yet persists with pride as if he heard them not. So announce to him a painful torment! (Surah 45:7,8)

 

Still there is no compulsion in religion right? So maybe you cannot force people to convert but you can warn people?

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay I re-read the chapter and I notice that Uthman sent for Hafsa's Suhuf (pg 88) and then after that, he sought after Aisha's copy (pg 91), and then after that it was rechecked with Hafsa's copy once again (pg 93). Is this correct?

 

As-salamu alaikum

 

No, the checking with the Hafsa's Suhuf happens once. Aisha's Suhuf are sought first to check them against the independent Mushaf Uthman had prepared and then finally against Hafsa's Suhuf. Azami doesn't talk about these things in a strict, linear chronological order. The problem you are having here is that you are thinking in a totally linear manner as evidenced by the fact that you say pg 88, pg 91 and pg 93.

 

So when Allah says "Then taste the torment...", won't that be in present tense once the disbelievers die? So will they hear Allah instead of seeing Him then?

 

Yes, they will hear God on the Day of Judgement but they won't see His Noble Countenance.

 

Okay right. So is it because of self defense, that this action is acceptable? (Until they all embrace Islam?) So that once Muslims have resisted hindrance from the opposing party trying to have Muslims go stray - they are to defend themselves and now take over the opposition as retaliation?

 

 

Could you rephrase that?

 

Still there is no compulsion in religion right? So maybe you cannot force people to convert but you can warn people?

 

The painful punishment that is talked about in that verse is the Hellfire. You are right. There is still no compulsion in religion. You can't force people to convert but you can warn people. As a matter of fact, it is a dutu to warn people of the accouting of the Day of Judgement and the punishment that awaits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you rephrase that?

 

Those who disbelieve [in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Prophet Muhammad SAW ], and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah (Islamic Monotheism), He will render their deeds vain. (Surah 47:1)

 

So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost, (Surah 47:4)

(Okay right. So is it because of self defense, that this action is acceptable? (Until they all embrace Islam?) So that once Muslims have resisted hindrance from the opposing party trying to have Muslims go stray - they are to defend themselves and now take over the opposition as retaliation?)

 

So since there is supposed to be no compulsion in religion, one shouldn't transgress on another in the name of religion - seeking out to force people to convert. So here in Surah 47:4, it mentions a believer should meet the disbeliever through battle for the goal of having the disbeliever embrace Islam. Now when it says that this is so in order that the believers saves the disbelievers or makes the disbelievers pay Zakkat, is that different from compulsion? Is it then compulsion of law instead of religion?

 

Or because in Surah 47:1; if disbelievers try to have Muslim's stray from their religion, then Muslim's have the right to defend themselves and counter with an attack that has the goal of disbelievers embracing Islam because of their attempt to hinder the Muslims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-salamu alaikum

 

I think the checking against Hafsa's Suhuf could have happened twice as Azami says: "So this time the independent copy was rechecked against the official Suhuf wich resided with Hafsa", if the use of the word "rechecked" necessitates that the checking happened twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As-salamu alaikum

 

I think the checking against Hafsa's Suhuf could have happened twice as Azami says: "So this time the independent copy was rechecked against the official Suhuf wich resided with Hafsa", if the use of the word "rechecked" necessitates that the checking happened twice.

 

Yea because I've re-read it several times but it seems to be saying Hafsa's Suhuf was double checked. But I fear I have to look at it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×