Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

→‎The lost verses on stoning and adult suckling: suckling 10 times had already been abrogated to 5 times
[checked revision][checked revision]
(→‎Diacritical Marks and Grammatical Mistakes: removed first example as it is incorrectly explained here. The explanation would be too involved for a short summary.)
(→‎The lost verses on stoning and adult suckling: suckling 10 times had already been abrogated to 5 times)
Line 95: Line 95:


==What is Missing from the Qur'an==  
==What is Missing from the Qur'an==  
===The lost verses on stoning and adult suckling===
===The lost verse on stoning===
The lost verse of Rajm ([[stoning]]) which read "The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise,"<ref>As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524</ref> was originally found in Surah al-Ahzab<ref>"''Umar said to me ‘How many verses are contained in the chapter of al-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘72 or 73 verses.’ He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 verses, and in it there was the verse of stoning.''" - Al-Muttaqi ‘Ali bin Husam al-Din in his book “Mukhtasar Kanz al-’Ummal” printed on the margin of Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 2, page 2, in his hadith about chapter 33</ref>.  
The lost verse of Rajm ([[stoning]]) which read "The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise,"<ref>As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524</ref> was originally found in Surah al-Ahzab<ref>"''Umar said to me ‘How many verses are contained in the chapter of al-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘72 or 73 verses.’ He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 verses, and in it there was the verse of stoning.''" - Al-Muttaqi ‘Ali bin Husam al-Din in his book “Mukhtasar Kanz al-’Ummal” printed on the margin of Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 2, page 2, in his hadith about chapter 33</ref>.  


This verse, along with verses regarding [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adult_Suckling adult suckling], were written on a piece of paper and were lost when a goat ate them.<ref>Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, page 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13</ref> The loss of the stoning verse is confirmed by Caliph Umar in [[sahih]] hadith.<ref>"''...Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession....''" - {{Muslim|17|4194}}</ref> Before becoming lost, the verse on adult suckling had already been abrogated and replaced with a watered down version. Evidently it was not very popular, and was resisted by some of Muhammad's wives.<ref>See for example regarding the abrogation {{Muwatta|30|3|17}}, and the displeasure of Muhammad's wives {{Muwatta|30|3|12}}</ref>
This verse, along with verses regarding [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adult_Suckling adult suckling], were written on a piece of paper and were lost when a sheep or goat ate them.<ref>“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” {{Ibn Majah||3|9|1944}} (Graded Hasan by Dar-us-Salam). Also found in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13</ref> The loss of the stoning verse is confirmed by Caliph Umar in [[sahih]] hadith.<ref>"''...Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession....''" - {{Muslim|17|4194}}</ref> Before becoming lost, the verse on adult suckling had already been abrogated and replaced with a watered down version. Evidently it was not very popular, and was resisted by some of Muhammad's wives.<ref>See for example regarding the abrogation {{Muwatta|30|3|17}}, and the displeasure of Muhammad's wives {{Muwatta|30|3|12}}</ref>


Islamic scholars typically explain this as a type of abrogation where the verse is no longer recited but the ruling still applies. But does such a type of abrogation make any sense? If the ruling remains, why let the verse be lost from the Qur'an and only preserved in hadith? It is perfectly obvious that this is a contrived explanation to escape such conspicuous preservation problems, in this case regarding the verse on stoning.
Islamic scholars typically explain this as a type of abrogation where the verse is no longer recited but the ruling still applies. But does such a type of abrogation make any sense? If the ruling remains, why let the verse be lost from the Qur'an and only preserved in hadith? It is perfectly obvious that this is a contrived explanation to escape such conspicuous preservation problems, in this case regarding the verse on stoning.
Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
2,743

edits