It’s just that your posts are usually very articulate, concise and lucid but you were all over the show with this one, a bit like when Dr Zakir Naik use to do a program on ARY and somebody phoned in asked him about the incident where Muhammad (S.a.w.W) on his deathbed asked for some paper and Umar said something to the effect of “the Book of God is enough for us, he’s not in his senses”, poor Dr Sahib’s stutter went from bad to worse, and his complexion from brown to maroon.
You want me to take a Qasam on the fact that H. Aisha’s goat wasnt around in 74 hijri?
i’m not going to take any Qasam’s. If someone thinks i’m making it up, for whatever reason, then good for them, they’re not really worth my time. I cant deal with paranoia. If people want verification, your best bet would be to go to a shias source (quran/books), thats the only way ppl like you can be satisfied.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on what taqiyyah is about, before going around accusing other people.
Okay, so gupguppy found the actual hadith that talks about the goat eating the Quranic revelation.
So, we’re back to square one now - how can a goat eat a Quranic revelation, when God says that these revelations are meant to be protected?
I’m so suprised we’re having this conversation. I really did think almost every muslim believes that the stoning ayah is not present in the Quran because a goat ate it. At least the more religious ones here. Ahem, i.e. the mullah squad.
Chel Chabela, yes, the copy that I have is translated by Dr. Muhain Khan. I couldn’t locate it.
PCG, this is the first time I’m hearing that people have assumed or have believe that the stoning to death portion is missing because some goat ate it. All along, all I’ve known is it’s something that is found in ahadith and those of us who follow Sahih ahadith are in accord with this punishment.
And the hadith that is in accord with this punishment mentions the goat and justifies the punishment because it was to be in the Quran, but wasn’t because a Goat ate it!
If a hadith states that the stoning punishment was to be part of the Quran, but has been left out because a goat ate it, then I would beg to differ. Quran has been completed and has been preserved perfectly. That is because Allah (SWT) took the responsibility for it. Therefore, according to what I believe in, not a single word is missing from the Quran. It has been preserved perfectly.
The Quran is undoubtedly, unerringly and indisputably unchanged and unaltered iniots entirety…
Whatever abrogations were made, were made during the life of the Holy Prophet :saw:…It’s not like someone meddled or the goat caused any problems with its authenticity…
The Hadith nowhere states that it was supposed to be part of the Quran…Only that they were Surahs…
The abrogations that were made, I believe are still found in Quran. I do not think the abrogations were left out and the remainder was used to compile the Quran. Please feel free to correct me.
Besides some goat eating part(s) of it doesn’t make any difference at all. To the best of my knowledge, Quran was memorised by many sahaba at the time of compilation. I believe many revised and checked it by what they had preserved in their memories and did not solely rely on papers/parchments/etc.
If Allah :swt: in His Wisdom didn’t want to include the chapters in the Quran then they were not meant to be in the Quran…
Maybe it was divine intervention that made the goat eat the parchments…Who knows…
As Muslims we know only one thing…Allah :swt: is a real as you or me…He is a reality…It’s just that some people put him at the back of their consciousness and some at the front…And their rewards similarly are different too…
Muslims just believe that the Quran is the way it was revealed from the time of its revelations from Jibraeel :as: to what you can buy from Amazon.com…
Doubting the authenticity of the Quran is a dangerous sign…The Kuffar and Shaitaan would like nothing more than you doubting your faith and they would bring up lies, fabrications, arguments and bogus proofs which in almost 1,500 years of Islam have been debunked millions of times…
All we know is the the Quran is complete and infallible…If doubt arises, then surely, one is crawling to a precipitous end and one must ask Astaghfar from Allah :swt:…
When Allah :swt: made a promise to guard the Quran, then to doubt it is tantamount to calling Allah :swt: a liar …
But the revelation is meant to be complete and protected. If you’re saying that God selectively sent down some revelations in SURAH form that were mean to be in the Quran (and therefore to be protected forever from corruption), and then selectively sent down some revelations in SURAH form that were not meant be in the Quran (and therefore not meant to be protected forever from corruption), then …
That undermines the core belief of muslims that the Quran has been meant to be protected forever from corruption. And we all know that the Quran was compiled in book form in Abu Bakr’s time. So were people told to memorize only those parts that were meant to be protected, but revelation that was not, was not to be be memorized. The historical aspect of it gets quite muddy, Lajawab.
Lets please first have the actual hadith in front of us, in its form and entirety and any other supporting or unsupporting hadith. Only then can a dialogue on this issue move forward. Otherwise, we’re all speculating on a topic that it doesn’t look like from this discussion anyone has a clear concept on.
your sayng “eye opener” would imply that you’re convinced they’re right in this. however this translation:
Is very different from the way the verse is normally translated (“We do not abrogate..”) by most translations, and reflects to my mind an effort to artificially settle the uncertainty regarding abrogation that this verse engenders.
If you scroll through the first page of the thread, you’ll see people usiing this verse to negate the concept of abrogation. The arabic is much closer to the first translation, by the way.
Lastly as captain1 says, if the only conclusive evidence of abrogation is from hadees, and that evidence arguably conflicts with the Quran, then why isnt the hadees discarded?
IMO, ‘ayahs of ALLAH’ refers to every revelation of Him sent to mankind. I refer to Quran for this as well:
3:23 **“Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who have been given ****a portion of the Book? They are invited to the Book of Allah, to settle their dispute, but a party of them turn back and decline ****(the arbitration).” **Surah Aal-e-Imran
So, the ayah of Rajam was in Torah and Prophet:saw: continued the law as it was not abrogated in the Quran EXPLICITELY.
This is a classic example of the abrogation of the recitation of a verse while upholding its ruling. It is cited as an example in nearly every book of Islamic jurisprudence and most books of Qur’ânic studies.
Give examples in the Quran which say that this sort of abrogation is allowable. By the defintion of the word “abrogation”, you annul something. And I’m not talking about words on paper. Abrogation means anulment of meaning. So if the baqri ate the verse, the verse was annulled, which means we shouldn’t be following this verse.
This manner of abrogation is referred to by Allah’s statement: “What we abrogate of the verses or cause to be forgotten, we come with what is better or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is capable of all things?” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 105]
See below for why this is not proof that certain verses can be destroyed physically, but whose meanings we should still follow:
**The words: “or cause to be forgotten” clearly show that verses can not only have their rulings abrogated, but their recitation can be abrogated as well.
Actually, look what comes after this clause: “we come with what is better or similar to it”. What was that better or similar thing that came after the goat-eaten verse? As of yet, no one has answered that.
^ opens up a pretty big challenge to my mind to Quran’s guarantee of protection for all time. If a goat can eat a verse and abrogate it, what keeps any other group of Muslims to take out bits of the Quran they dont like and consider it abrogated?
what would indicate to me that all this talk of “majority of Quranic books” etc is bluster is the fact that the majority of Muslims on this board and in general are unaware of any goat eating a portion of the Quran to annul it, and that verse is hardly forgotten but read everyday by Muslims all over the world as part of the Quran. it is included in every Quran that is published to date and read as part of it, regardless of people suggesting that it isnt.
…
