After the prophet’s death, how many years passed before Quran was compiled? Also why did Caliph Usman ordered non-Usmani copies of the Quran burnt.
We have an ongoing discussion on ‘jinns’ in the General forum and I am wondering if additions, cultural biases and superstitions of Arabs/non-Muslims found their way in the Quran after Prophet’s death. This concept of ‘jinns’ sounds very un-Islamic as Islam prohibits/discourages superstitious beliefs. Also, did pre-Islam Qureish and other tribes of jahil arabia believe in evil spirits, jinns etc? From the penchant for idol worhipping and deities it seems plausible that they did.
It should be noted that compilation is not the same as recording. The Quran was indeed recorded during his life. Compilation implies that the process simply brought the material together in a single volume. Given the amount of cross-checks available (in terms of those who had their own private copy, and indeed those who had memorized the Quran), the probability of tampering is slight.
The concept of jinn is fundemental to Islamic theology, as Satan is of the Jinn, and not the Angles.
Do you have to concern yourselves with them? No. Out of sight, out of mind. What exactly do they represent? Academic...and not neccessarily superstitious. A pre-human alien race that cohabits the earth...or perhaps cohabited (are they still here?).
Why did Caliph Usman had all other "recordings" burnt while his compilation was deemed the 'official' Quran.
In absence of a single reference or a compiled copy, the probability of tampering is VERY HIGH. Heck, Muslims can't agree on veracity of hadihts and they argue over 4 schools.
In fact if indeed there were divergent readings that would have made the perfect pretext for a rebelion against him. There was a lot of intregue against him, and a group using this issue as a pretext for fitnah would have been gauranteed.
It's lunacy to think that there was anything but uninimity on the matter. His was the order to come out with an official Quran...it does not mean he was alone in vetting what went in or was left out.
[quote]
In absence of a single reference or a compiled copy, the probability of tampering is VERY HIGH.
[/quote]
I stronlgy disagree. This only makes sense if an elite few actually saw or heard the entire Quran. This is not true.
[quote]
Heck, Muslims can't agree on veracity of hadihts and they argue over 4 schools.
[/quote]
Different...different imparative and different time scales. I should also point out the irony in using Hadith (which contains the only reference to varying Quranic recitations) as an example of inaccurate text...
By his time, Islam had spread amongst non-Arabs (The A’jam) … There were many dialects of Arabic (7 if I remember it correctly) and due to the difference in pronounciation of different words, the non-arabs were getting it all wrong with wrong pronounciations at many places.. What Usman:razi: did was just to compile the Quran in the text of one dialect which was the dialect of the Peophet:saw: and burnt all other so the confusion goes away once and for all…
Islam is a simple and pragmatic religion. So, what’s up the voodoo/jinn business. Did prophet mention anything about jinns? Please don’t quote any hadihts because you and other posters can chase each other in circles over their veracity. It seems that this jinn business are inclusions that found their way in the Quran thanks to some jinn-friendly scribes. I don’t think even Caliph Usman could withstand those jinn-frinedly scribes and their ‘inclusions’.
PS: How many years passed after Prophet death and the compilation of a ‘unified’ Quran?
No jinns are specifically mentioned in the quran in a whole chapter revealed titled "al-Jin" or the jin. This is because Allah SWT created Jinn and Angels way before he created a Human being. This is not a later addition to the text.
^ It may be slightly more complicated than that. Those who suppot the theory that the Quran may have been altered from it’s original state often mention hadiths that makes mention of a verse that did not make it into the Quran.
Needless to say, it most likely didn’t make it in because it had no place in the Quran to begin with!
Needless to say, it most likely didn't make it in because it had no place in the Quran to begin with!
What about inclusions that are incongruous to the simple and pragmatic teachings of Islam like 'jinns' etc.? There are no hadiths contradicting those verses/suras.
This concept is not brought by Prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H). According to Quran the Jinns existed on earth even thousands of years before Adam or mankind (Surah Baqara) and then the second main talk about the Jinns is co related to Prophet Daud (A.S) and prophet Sulaiman (A.S) and then prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H).
The opening of Surah Baqara verse three is " 2: 3. Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them. "
Also the last two surah clearly shows the existance of Jinns and how to take refuge from them.
If your logic works then you will also say the same thing about Angels !
Burning of Quranic manuscripts by Uthman had several reasons, most importantly political ones , it does not mean that different versions of qurans
if that was the case in the civil war that followed each side would have accused the other one of tampering with the text
Comprehensive REPORT FOR THE BOOK OF ALLAH (HOLY QURAN) "Hadhrath Ali compiled the Qur'an during the lifetime of the Prophet[saww] but Allah's taqdir prevented this from coming forward". Izalatul Khifa, by Shah WaliyullahVolume 4 p 497
The above evidences from the most regarded sources including the Sahih of al-Bukhari begs the following rational questions:
If the Qur'an had not been compiled during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet then why did he during his farewell pilgrimage tell the companions the following:
"I am leaving amongst you two weighty things the Book of Allah (Kitabullah) and my Ahlulbayt"? (a mutawatir narration).
It is incorrect to call Qur'an al-kitab when it is merely in the people's memory. Furthermore, it is even inappropriate to apply the word al-kitab to the fragments written on palm branches, flat stones, and shoulder blades, expect when such an application is figurative and from particulate attention. But a word may not be used metaphorically without something to indicate that. The word al-kitab obviously signifies a single and united entity. It is not applied to a text which is scattered and not collected, let alone one which is unwritten and preserved in memory only.
1. Hadhrath Umar said "The Book of Allah is sufficient for us", when the Prophet (saaws) asked for a pen and paper on his deathbed did? Why say 'Book' and not just say Qur'an? ([FONT=Times New Roman]Al-Bukhari reported in volume 8, in "The Chapter on Abhorrence of Differences", in "The Book on Adherence to the Qur'an and Sunna", from 'Abd Allah b. 'Abbas who said: "When the time of the Prophet's (S.A.W.) death drew near, there were people in the house, among them 'Umar b. al-Khattab. He said: 'Come so that I may write for you [something] so that you may never go astray'. 'Umar said: 'Surely the Prophet (S.A.W.) is overcome by pain; you have with you the Qur'an, and the book of Allah is sufficient for us". The members of the household differed and argued [amongst themselves]. Among them were those who said: 'Come closer, the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) will write for you [something] so you will never go astray afterwards'. Among them were those who said what 'Umar had said. When the noise and differences intensified in the presence of the Prophet (S.A.W.), he said: 'Go away from me'". [FONT=Times New Roman]Ibn 'Abbas used to say: "The calamity of all calamities was the clamour and differences that occurred between the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) and his writing the dictate for them" (al-Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 161; vol. 1, p. 37, and vol. 5, p. 138). )
If the Qur'an was not compiled then whey did this verse descend "Today, I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that your religion be Islam" (Qur'an 5:3)? This is especially true when the narration of Tirmidhi states of the Prophet[saww] died without specifying the location of Surah al-Tawbah. Would this therefore not imply that Islam was incomplete because Muslims did not know the positions of the Surah's?
Why would the Holy Prophet leave the earth leaving this task unfulfilled - after all his prime purpose in the earthly sphere of existence was the deliverance of the Revelation to guide the billions who followed till the Day of Judgment. It would have been prudent to at the very least have one copy of the Qur'an preserved on indelible materials under his immaculate supervision, either compiled as the Revelation was issued from his tongue or at the end of his Mission.
Hadhrath Umar wanted to collate the Qur'an into book form because he was concerned that it would get lost. How can this be the case when Allah (swt) states categorically "Certainly We sent down the Dhikr (i.e., Qur'an), and certainly we shall protect it" (Qur'an 15:9), did Hadhrath Umar not have faith in this verse?
Why did Hadhrath Abu Bakr opt to choose Zaid bin Thabit as compiler when prominent Sahaba famed for their knowledge of the Qur'an such as Ubayy bin Ka'ab and Abdullah ibne Masud present. The latter were acknowledged as the foremost in their knowledge of the Qur'an excepting the Holy Prophet himself.
Hadhrath Uthman went even further and appointed, with the presence in Madina of some of the greats amongst the companions who were famed for their knowledge of the Qur'an, companions who were mere boys during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. If one analyses their ages we learn Abdullah bin Zubayr was born in 2 Hijri, Saeed bin Aas in 1 Hijri, Abdur Rahman bin Harith in 1 Hijri, the eldest Zaid bin Thabit was 11 years of age at the time of the Hijrath. The last verse of the Qur'an descended in 10 Hijri that means all four were very young - in fact children, three of whom were still not even Baligh (attained the age of adolescence). Why were these four preferred to prominent sahaba such as Abdullah ibne Masud and Ubayy bin Ka'ab?
The learning of Abdullah bin Masud and Ubai bin Ka'b is preserved in the Sahih Bukhari where we read this hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Amr:
"I heard the Holy Prophet saying, 'Take (Learn) the Qur'an from four: Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh, and Ubai bin Ka'b'." Sahih Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 6 hadith number 521
If this is indeed the case then why did neither Hadhrath Abu Bakr nor Hadhrath Uthman select any of these men to collate and compile the Qur'an?
1. Za'id began to compile the Qur'an during Hadhrath Abu Bakr's life. The task stopped and did not start again until Hadhrath Uthman's khilafath. Why was there this pause, especially since the mighty Hadhrath Umar prevented any civil instability in and around Madina, which was not the case with the first and third khalifas whose rules were marred by civil war in and around Madina? What more tranquil, relatively speaking, an opportunity, especially since the compilation of this Qur'an was the suggestion of Hadhrath Umar himself - why this gap period of in excess of no less than 10 years? When Hadhrath Umar was so concerned that the Qur'an be collated why did he not ensure that the task was completed during his ten year reign? He said that he was worried that reciters were dying on the battlefield. Many more wars occurred during his own khilafath so why did he lose that concern?
1. Rather than go to the extraordinary length of appointing a four man committee to collate the Qur'an in to book fashion, a pain staking process would it not have been easier to use the Qur'an that had been compiled by Hadhrath Ali (as)?
Here are a further to questions for our Salafi brothers:
1. Did the Sahaba not commit bidah by compiling the Qur'an when the Prophet (S) did not?
1. Are you not committing bidah by keeping the Qur'an at home when according to Sahih al Bukhari did NOT compile the Word of Allah (swt) in Book form? If all bidah's are in the fire then is this bidah not also in the fire?
Clearly, this makes no sense. It is a gross slander to suggest that the Prophet[saww] would fail to collate the revelation in to a book form. We believe that he arranged for the compilation during his lifetime - this is simple rationality - and entrusted the Gate of Knowledge Imam Ali (as) with the task, as confirmed by Shah Waliyullah. To suggest that this did not happen because Allah (swt) did not want this compilation makes no sense. How could Imam Ali (as) be removed from this instrumental role when the Prophet[saww] had stated:
"Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali, they will never separate until they reach me at the Fountain of Kauthar". Al Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 p 124
Compare the enormous reservation expressed by Za'id bin to the challenge of Imam Ali (as):
"Ask me about the Book of Allah, because there is no Ayah but that I know whether it was revealed at night or in daytime, on the plain or in the mountain" History of the Khailfa's who took the right way by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke, p 194
The Wahabie scholar Shah Ismail Shaheed expands on this point to an even greater depth:
"Imamate is the Shadow of the Prophethood. The Imam's leadership is openly declared. Whereas history provides evidence of Saints that remained silent, the Imam announces whatever powers he possesses as Imam Ali did when he declared 'I am the Sidiq al Akbar (The Great Truthful One) and whoever declares this after me is a liar and I am the talking Qur'an". Munsub e Imamate by Shah Ismail Shaheed page 69
To summarize we can understand this to be an attempt to lessen the honour and prestige of the Holy Prophet[saww] and Imam Ali (as) by giving the role of the collection of the Qur'an to the sahaba (even though the Qur'an was completed during the Prophet[saww] time).
The issue so alarmed the Sunni scholar Mahmud Abu Riyyah that he wrote the following:
"The strangest thing and embarrassing point is that they have never even included the name of Ali within those encharged with collecting and writing down the Qur'an, neither during the reign of Abu Bakr nor that of Uthman! Mentioning instead the name of those lower than him in degrees of knowledge and fiqh! Was Ali unable to undertake such a task! Or was he among those untrustworthy men? Or among those who were incompetent to be consulted or committed to shoulder this responsibility?
While in fact reason and logic necessitate that Ali should be the foremost and most competent man entrusted with this job, due to possessing attributes and merits of which all other Companions were deprived. He was reared and grown up under the care of the Prophet [saww], living long under his protection, attending the Wahi from the first days of revelation up to the day of cessation, in a way that he did not miss even one of his verse?!
So if he was not to be called for such a critical task, what thing else would he be called for?!
And if they invented justifications for ignoring him (Imam Ali) in regard of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, never consulting him or seeking him or seeking his opinion about it, what excuse they can give for not inviting him to the task of writing the Qur'an? Is there any logical reason for this behavior? What judgement can be issued by any just judge? What a surprising matter it is, and we have nothing to say but: May God help you O Ali! They have not treated you with equity in anything!" Adwa' ala' al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah (lights on the Muhammadan Sunnah) page 300, by Mahmud Abu Riyyah - English edition published by Ansariyan publications 1999
If Imam Ali had collected the Qur'an during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet [saww], it is clear that he must have done so under the specific command of the Holy Prophet. The question now arises - why, after the death of the Holy Prophet, was this version not taken as the official version by Hadhrath Abu Bakr? There is left little room but to contemplate the fact that this was another step in the conspiracy against the family to separate the Qur'an from the Ahlulbayt so that no one turns to them for guidance. This was, in other words, a form of ostracization, one that in fact amounted to censorship of the Qur'an till the state had officially eliminated Imam Ali from any claim towards its compilation, an achievement they would take the credit for, and one that if acknowledged would have brought the masses to Imam Ali and not to them for guidance. The khilafath of man had originated in the connivance of men to establish an alternative form of khilafath to that intended by the Holy Prophet. This khilafath was in opposition to that intended by the Holy Prophet, which had been a khilafath that was from a lineage within the family of the Holy Prophet, a lineage that also linked to the Qur'an. The khilafath had been snatched from the family. The other easy means of approach for guidance, the Qur'an, was also snatched.
The state took the Book and monopolized its production, distribution and took lofty credit for the achievement, credit that exists to this day when we still hear that it was Hadhrath Uthman who finally compiled the Qur'an. It is also self-evident in this premise that if Imam Ali (as)'s versions had been taken then people would turn to him to seek clarification on verses this would undermine their positions as Leaders of the State - for example the Qur'anic verses of appointment, and further notice certain departures of the first three khalifas from the Book. It was a minority, the earliest Shi'i, who gathered with Imam Ali took him as the interpreter of the Holy Qur'an - seeking guidance from his copy. The majority was left without a Qur'an for 20 years after the death of the Holy Prophet. This is a staggering fact. The Shi'i have held to the Qur'an through the family exactly as instructed by the Holy Prophet, and without intermission. The majority had absolutely no Qur'an in any Muslim house for 20 years - a whole generation, the first Muslims born into a world from which the Seal of Messengers had departed - without a Qur'an amongst them.
The 2 copies of the Qur'an were of course preserved by Allah - since Allah writes that He has preserved His dhikr in the Qur'an - there was no difference on this between the Qur'an as compiled by Imam Ali and that compiled by Hadhrath Uthman - but the fact remains - the followers of Imam Ali received guidance through the Qur'an from the very moment of the death of the Holy Prophet. The clarity of the Shi'i vision is unfolding. The conclusions of this section are quite clear:
The Qur'an is with Ali and Ali is with the Qur'an.
The 2 copies of the Qur'an were of course preserved by Allah - since Allah writes that He has preserved His dhikr in the Qur'an - there was no difference on this between the Qur'an as compiled by Imam Ali and that compiled by Hadhrath Uthman - but the fact remains - the followers of Imam Ali received guidance through the Qur'an from the very moment of the death of the Holy Prophet.
I am not questioning who had the 'truth' first and the point becomes moot when you say that both sides had the same 'truth'.
^ meray bhai this is exactly what i meant by "political reasons" Ubay ibn Ka'b(ra) and Abdullah ibn Masud(ra) were sidelined by Uthman and other sahaba were preferred.But this is the month of Ramadhan lets not start a shia-sunni dispute here
Salam,
Dear who who believe that there is difference in Quran is out of Islam.
But there is difference in compling, becuase (IQRA Bisme.....) is the first Verse but could not be compiled accuratly by The HAZRAT UTMAN.
The state took the Book and monopolized its production, distribution and took lofty credit for the achievement, credit that exists to this day when we still hear that it was Hadhrath Uthman who finally compiled the Qur'an. It is also self-evident in this premise that if Imam Ali (as)'s versions had been taken then people would turn to him to seek clarification on verses this would undermine their positions as Leaders of the State - for example the Qur'anic verses of appointment, and further notice certain departures of the first three khalifas from the Book. It was a minority, the earliest Shi'i, who gathered with Imam Ali took him as the interpreter of the Holy Qur'an - seeking guidance from his copy. The majority was left without a Qur'an for 20 years after the death of the Holy Prophet. This is a staggering fact. The Shi'i have held to the Qur'an through the family exactly as instructed by the Holy Prophet, and without intermission. The majority had absolutely no Qur'an in any Muslim house for 20 years - a whole generation, the first Muslims born into a world from which the Seal of Messengers had departed - without a Qur'an amongst them.
The 2 copies of the Qur'an were of course preserved by Allah - since Allah writes that He has preserved His dhikr in the Qur'an - there was no difference on this between the Qur'an as compiled by Imam Ali and that compiled by Hadhrath Uthman - but the fact remains - the followers of Imam Ali received guidance through the Qur'an from the very moment of the death of the Holy Prophet. The clarity of the Shi'i vision is unfolding. The conclusions of this section are quite clear:
The Qur'an is with Ali and Ali is with the Qur'an.
Twose who follow Ali(as) is guided.
[/QUOTE]
but even at the height of his political power Ali(as) never introduced a "new" Quran, even when most of the tribes were backing him and were ready to fight for him
Furthermore the Qurra of kufa amongst the staunchest supporters of Ali(as) also did not unveil a new quran as far as I know
In absence of a single reference or a compiled copy, the probability of tampering is VERY HIGH. Heck, Muslims can't agree on veracity of hadihts and they argue over 4 schools.
SALAM. THOSE WHO THINK THAT THE TEMPERING WAS POSSIBLE IN HOLY QURAN did not believe in ALLAH , where ALLAH says, NO ONE CAN MAKE CHANGES IN HOLY QURAN.
but even at the height of his political power Ali(as) never introduced a "new" Quran, even when most of the tribes were backing him and were ready to fight for him
Furthermore the Qurra of kufa amongst the staunchest supporters of Ali(as) also did not unveil a new quran as far as I know
ONLY REASON was DANGER FOR ISLAM: As he did not fight for his own right of KHILAFAT during the time of the first three KHALIFA
but even at the height of his political power Ali(as) never introduced a "new" Quran, even when most of the tribes were backing him and were ready to fight for him
Furthermore the Qurra of kufa amongst the staunchest supporters of Ali(as) also did not unveil a new quran as far as I know
*"Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali, they will never separate until they reach me at the Fountain of Kauthar".
*Al Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 p 124
That was a different time, I am talking about his caliphate
when he WAS fighting against the Rebels and the pledgebreakers why should he not fight against the "distorters of Quran " then?
