Sura 33, Verse 6
The verse in question has two slightly different readings; one is, “the Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and his wives are their mothers” or it is read as, “the Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and he is their father”. (Revised - This should read, "the Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and his wives are their mothers, and he is their father.")
Note, this is the only verse in the “recitation” where something like this occurs e.g. in one Qiraat or style, the verse reads “…and he is their father” and in the other “…and his wives are their mothers”. (Revising – David Wood mentions more than one qirras read this, I’m not sure as to which Qiraat those are yet, so I will be researching this point, to add, if possible, before publishing.)
It is (admittedly) a variation, and we can determine what this means, in terms of the authenticity of the Quran itself, and the Arabic and why there are two different readings (Qiraat). (Revising – according to Yusuf Ali)
How come?
Yusuf Ali, in his footnote, says Nabil, “In some Qirras, like that of Ubay ibn Ka’b, occur also the words, ‘and he is a father of them’”.
Ubay was one (of four) of Muhammad’s chosen Quran teachers; he used to teach it to others.
The Qiraat of Ubay, doesn’t mean a different Quran however, it is in the “recitation” which he differed from others. Obviously during the time when Ubay was teaching, the Prophet was alive.
Nabil says, this means reading today’s Quran (Yusuf Ali’s version has the footnote mentioned about the different Qirras for Ch. 33 V. 6.) makes Muslims “guilty of deceit”. But he forgets that firstly, this is the reading in one of the styles only. Secondly, the difference is very minor, and might be the only one of its kind which occurs. Also, the hadith explains that “it is better” to read the verse the way that the Prophet Muhammad, read it. So, there is no deceit involved in reading it one way or the other. The way the non-Muslim twists the words of Ibn Masud is detestable. Fourthly, regardless what Zayd bin Thabit or others recited of chapter 33, verse 6, the Quran we have today is the same Quran which Muhammad, pbuh, recited and approved also. The Qirras are many, but the Quran is only one.
The Quran contains over 2,000 verses. These people want us to throw out the entire Mushaf because Zayd bin Thabit didn’t read one verse the way that Ubay bin Ka’b preferred to read it (according to a footnote by Yusuf Ali, which is not present in any copy of his “translation” being printed today). Yet, they remain Christians and their books are filled from first to last with 100,000s errors or interpolations. (I'm not denying or agreeing with Yusuf Ali because I haven't been able to verify anything more about the recitation of Ubay bin Ka'b; I welcome others to send me more on the subject, with references)
(Ibn Sa’d tells) according to David (Wood), Ibn Masud requires the Muslims in Iraq to keep the Masahif that were with them and conceal them, then how is it that the Quran was not preserved, even according to his understanding of the events?? What I mean to ask is, are there two different Masahif?
The Quran (and recitation) of Zayd bin Thabit (which) doesn’t have “and he (e.g. the Prophet) is their father” is spread; it is what Muslims read (and similarly, the copies which are produced in Saudi Arabia); how does this reflect badly on Zayd bin Thabit? If the Prophet had forbidden the people from reciting it differently they wouldn’t have recited it differently. The fact is, the Prophet allowed or disallowed Muslims while he was alive. This means that if the Prophet permitted a difference (slight variation) in reading then it is permissible, not “deceit”. The words “and he is their father” is not present in the Qur’an, in any “version” I have looked at including, The Qur’an, by Muhammad Wahiduddin Khan, published by GoodWord Books.
“The Quran has been perfectly preserved” and also the hadiths and Islamic knowledge have been preserved. It is just that even with all the texts in front of him David can’t understand or won’t understand. He is ‘deaf, dumb and blind’. It is due to the Muslims efforts to preserve not only the Quran but also the other Islamic texts and to teach these, that we know all about the small details, such as what David presents as a “calamity”. Obviously he is deceived, to present this as fraud to unsuspecting and gullible masses of people who don’t know anything about Islamic history, the compilation of the Quran, Quranic recitation, the preservations of Islamic texts, etc. etc.
David says, “I’m glad no one has burned this evidence”.
As if the Muslims would now regret after his hour long display of hatred, deceptions, and twisted version of history, that we have the sources which the early Muslims worked painstakingly to preserve for new generations of Muslims. Alhamdulillah, I thank Allah for any and all Islamic knowledge (texts), whether I am able to understand their significance or not. Whether I am capable of researching them and teaching them or not. I thank Allah for the Muslims of past and present, especially the scholars and other knowledgeable people who (did) devote themselves to spreading Islam.
No one has burned any evidence, and we thank God that the original sources exist so any with a mind can examine them.
I have a question about David Wood’s sources; he has many books on the table, but doesn’t show us two different “versions” of the Qur’an. He claims there are Qurans with 111 Chapters, Qurans with 114 Chapters (which is true) and Qurans with 116 Chapters, but never shows us even one Quran. Why doesn’t he compare the pages of Quran, even once, or demonstrate the different numbers of chapters and verses? He shows us several Hadiths, but not even one Arabic Quran. Does he expect the audience to take his word for this? If he was really interested in ‘exposing’ the truth, then he should have shown us real undeniable proof of his claim. Show us, where does the Quran talk about different details of events from one “version” to another, as the different “versions” of the Bible or the “Gospels” do? The reality is, even English translations do not have such demonstrable proof.
Muslims commonly refer to two Chapters in the Quran with two different Chapter names; Sura al-Mulk (Chapter 67) is sometimes called Sura al-Tabarak; j’uz Tabarak is the 29th “part” (j’uz) of the Quran,; there are thirty j’uz in the Qur’an. Similarly, many of the other Juz are referred to by the first word of the j’uz, e.g. j’uz A’ama, is the final j’uz, and is practically named after the first word of that j‘uz e.g. A’ama. The first Chapter of the final j’uz is called an-Naba’ (not al- A’ama). The other example of calling an individual Chapter by two different Chapter names is Chapter 9, al-Tawbah (Repentance). Footnote 423 reads, “This surah is also known as Bara’ah, meaning disassociation, freedom, release or immunity. The words Bismillahir-Ramanir-Raheem were not revealed at the beginning of this surah.” (The Qur’an, Saheeh International). Because of the declaration of “disassociation” from Allah and the Muslims to the people mentioned in the first verse, “polytheists” who had violated a treaty of theirs with the Muslims, this chapter doesn’t begin with “in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful” as other Chapters of the Quran.
Chapter One, first footnote, reads, “Al-Fatihah: The Opening (of the Qur’an). Note: Surah titles are not an integral part of the Quran. A distinguishing word in a particular surah or a word defining its subject matter often became a common means of identification among the Prophet’s companions and later scholars. Although some names, such as al-Fatihah, were used by the Prophet [SAWS] in reference to a particular surah, they were not specifically designated by him as titles.” (The Qur’an, Saheeh International).
Yusuf Ali versus The Qur’an (Saheeh International)
The footnote of Yusuf Ali mentions chapter 33, verse 6 is different in Ubay bin Ka’ab’s “recitation” (not “version”).
I have the Saudi published The Qur’an, copyright, 1997. It does not have the words, “and he is the father of them” as Yusuf Ali’s footnote mentions. Does Yusuf Ali’s own translation have the words? I have the Yusuf Ali revised edition of the Interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Qur’an, by Dar As-Salaam publishers, and it doesn’t have these words either. Does the first Yusuf Ali original have them? I don’t believe any translations (of the meanings of the Qur’an) contain the words “and he is their father”. This means that the words may be recited, but do not exist in any copy of the Qur’an, either in Arabic or any other language. They are only recited in (a) certain qiraat(s) (e.g. the style or the recitation of Ubay bin Ka’b - and (maybe) some others). This is what Yusuf Ali mentions in his footnote, according to David Wood. The words also do not appear in the Arabic in either the Warsh or Hafs copies which I have. I have many copies of Hafs, as those are what people here read, but in other parts of the GCC people read Warsh (and possibly other Qirras). I have only one copy of the Warsh qiraat which we bought while living in Qatar because of its unique style. (I’d like to make a video about these two in particular, because of their special differences, not in “meanings of verses” , but in style of writing and recitation; style of writing and numbering of the verses are different, which I’m in the process of investigating and detailing, so I can post something about this subject.)
Zayd bin Thabit
“O, you Muslim people! [sic]Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of Zaid bin Thabit. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man” – and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Masahif that are with you, and conceal them.” – Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104
Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Aas said,’ I heard the Prophet saying, “Learn the Qur’an from four: ‘Abdullah Ibn Masud, Salim, Muadh, and Ubai Ibn Ka’ab.”’
Questions I might ask here are:
1. Since Zaid bin Thabit had not dissuaded or attempted to dissuade others from reciting Qur’an differently from him, as it appears, nor had he any enmity towards Ubai Ibn Ka’b, or any of the four main teachers of Qur’an, it suggests that he was not in disagreement as to the situation; that there was a difference of opinion only, about how to read Chapter 33, Verse 6, or other verses? This is what we can gather from the fact that Ibn Masud warned others (in Iraq, only) not to copy Zaid’s copy of the Qur’an. But there was no dissention in the ranks of the Muslims at the time - there was neither a bitter fight about the issue, nor any rancor or real enmity? It was as I explain, “a difference of opinion”, which can happen between people who live closely together and share common goals and aspirations. They had the goal of Paradise before them at all times, and they also had aspirations, such as the preservation of the word of Allah, to practice the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (as closely as possible), and they never resisted the need to “strive in the way of Allah”, even if it meant sometimes disagreeing with other Muslims.
2. The hadith tells that Zaid, RA, was not born until much later (than Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr). His father had not yet embraced Islam when Zaid was born; Thabit became a Muslim when? Muslims do not discriminate against Zaid, or others because their/his father(s) were/had been non-believer(s), or if their father(s) were/was late into the fold (e.g. became Muslim after or during the conquest, etc.) Thabit bin Qais was a famous shaheed (martyr) and therefore a respected person of the early and later Muslims.
3. Some of the early Muslims excelled in recitation, meaning that they had the best voices or the most beautiful recitation. This doesn’t detract from the fact that others also were excellent in recitation and many of the Sahabi and Tabai had memorized the entire Qur’an and knew the interpretation of the Qur’an. The Emir Al Moumineen, Uthman Bin ‘Affan (RA) commissioned Zaid (RA) in making the Qur’an. He also would have himself checked the pages of each work as they were completed, or others would have checked. It would have been very easy to remove and replace one page (of any book) if the verse (Chapter 33, Verse 6) were not correct. There is nothing that suggests Uthman bin ‘Affan would not have made sure the Qur’an copies were not as they should be. Muslims used to recite the Qur’an in three days and nights, emulating a practice of the Prophet, SAWS. All the early Muslims agree that Uthman, RA, was a right and honorable Emir (he was the third Caliph) of the people, no one would dispute that he was as good a judge of character as Ibn Mas’ud. E.g. his choice of Zayd bin Thabit to head the writing of the Qur’an is not a problem for Muslims.
4. Lastly, Ibn Mas’ud says, “the people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an.” He does not say nor does any early Muslim say, nor was ever recorded that a verse or even one word of the Mushaf (“the Book of Allah”) is missing or wrong. We read the Mushaf (“the Book”), the Qur’an in book form, and there are no differences in word or meaning from one to the other – only there are different Qirras (dialects).
Summary
The fact that Zayd bin Thabit recited the Qur’an capably and thereafter was commissioned in the compilation of it means that he was pious and trustworthy. The Caliph commissioned many people (as scribes) to write the Qur’ans (Masahif). They were verified and then sent to different Islamic capitals. All the versions were the same. Uthman was himself the foremost Muslim in piety and religion - he was more than capable of success in the endeavor, and the proof is that all the Qur’ans and subsequent Qur’ans were the same; some ancient copies exist; and before and after they didn’t change. This shows Allah’s hand in the preservation of His Holy Book through the Muslims’ genuine efforts. Even when other works, books or letters, were written by non-Muslim scribes, there were no errors permitted (or committed), therefore there was never any chance that the Muslims or Muslim scribes would have neglected the writing of the Qur’an or other important books and translations, or that the Emir Uthman Bin ‘Affan would have permitted errors in the Qur’ans (Masahif) written under his authority.
“Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.”
(Quran, Ch: 13, V: 39)
Aisha and the two “lost verses”
We know that a verse about stoning the adulterers is in the Quran so there is no evidence that just because a sheep may have eaten Aisha’s note from under her pillow, that others didn’t know the verse anyway. That’s silly. Muslims don’t breastfeed adults, so it seems the note never existed or the verse about breastfeeding an adult was abrogated, because it happened during those days, one of the women had a boy who she breastfeed, even though he was past the age of breastfeeding and because of this she was permitted to keep him as a real son (children can be breastfeed up to two years of age, to make them one’s own by suckling (this is an issue which teachers of Islamic history know well, also as to the specifics, which I am not qualified for).Thus any woman who breast fed a child, he would be her child in suckling, although he already has a birth mother and she retains the right to keep him because he is her birth son.) This is discussed because a child by suckling gets a right to inheritance like the breastfeeding mother’s own birth children, and this point is a consideration in fatawas and inheritance distribution.
A verse about breastfeeding (children) to the age of two does exist. Based on this verse, one woman was saved from (any) suspicion of adultery by her husband (in such circumstances, they might do al-Lian, which means ‘invoking curses in front of Allah’ – this is done when either suspects the other spouse, but the wife or husband bring the curse of Allah on her/himself if s/he goes through with this and is lying). In the case of the woman who’s child was born fully developed and healthy at 6 months of age, a scholar concluded that it was her husband’s child (even though she had only been married 6 - 7 months and the child was full grown) because the verse reads “pregnancy and breastfeeding are completed in 30 months”. The judge concluded that the woman was innocent of a grave sin (adultery), though her child was apparently born healthy and robust after only six months of pregnancy; the judgment prevented the necessity to resort to al-Lian, which would be a severe step/crisis for husband and wife, and also they would have had to divorce. Revising – find direct quote (words in yellow highlight)
Other Books of ilm (Knowledge)
Some of the other books of knowledge were written in a form which looks strange to us and the usefulness of the book would suffer in such an arrangement today, therefore, others took it upon themselves to rearrange some earlier works of famous scholars into a modern format, with book chapters and titles, as well as different sections and/or reorganization. They even needed (to add) full stops (periods) and commas and other useful punctuation marks to some of the earlier works. This process happened with one of the most widely used and famous books of Islamic studies, Al-Kitab at-Tauhid. Rearrangement and punctuation made the texts more beneficial and easier to study, but retained all the ideas and phrasing used by the earlier scholars, or if phrasing or wording was modernized; still the books retained their essential important meanings. Of course, the need to translate is another aspect of book publishing and spreading of knowledge which happens today, as well as it happened in the past, from the Greek to Arabic, or other languages with books preserved and translated by Muslims. The need to translate books from Arabic to English, etc. happened later on when Islamic knowledge and teaching spread to non-Muslims and lands outside of the Arabian or Islamic arenas. Before that it was essentially taught in Arabic at Islamic colleges or universities to which many non-Arabs and non-Muslims flocked as well (as Muslim and Arabs).
‘They (angels) said: “Glory is to You, we have no knowledge except what you have taught us. Verily, it is You, the All-Knower, the All-Wise.”’ (Ch: 2, V: 32, Quran)
David Wood speaks
David Wood (in the video, after a “five hour deliberation” has taken place) concludes that when Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, sent many reciters of Qur’an into the battle and they died, “much of the Qur’an was lost”. In his own words, he admits that the death of the reciters equals the loss of the Qur’an. E.g. when the reciters died, their knowledge of recitation and interpretation (also) was taken away; this would be more than just the eating of two verses by a sheep; yet, there were other reciters, who were known, to continue the work of spreading Islam and teaching. By the grace of God there were many more Muslims to keep safe the Qur’an in their hearts. The “loss of the Qur’an” which we mention is not the same as “lost verses” which others speak about; no verses have gone “missing” and none have been “changed’ = nothing missing or changed.
Brother David’s argument is withering; soon it falls like a ‘house of cards’.
Arrangement of the Qur’an
As with the Quran, other books have similarly been arranged with chapters and verses, as well as punctuation. The different style of Arabic writing, especially when we talk about the Quran doesn’t affect the recitation or meaning of the verses. Two styles which I am slightly more familiar with are Hafs and Warsh; some of the letters look different, but the words can be read and compared, and never are there differences in meaning between the Hafs or Warsh styles (qiraat); whether one is reading or reciting, the significant meanings (and the wording) in the Qur’an are the same.
Some people mention that copies of Quran can have 111 chapters or 114, or 116 (if this is true, which I have not found yet any proof of) this would only be (because) if the arrangement is different. For example, I would guess reasons why the arrangement is different, and can give some reasonable examples from my own thoughts on the subject. The Qur’ans I have seen so far (have) only ever had 114 Chapters. But it is possible to imagine why some might contain more or less chapters but still retain all the same words. Even number of verses could be affected in a similar manner; for example, if Al-Fatihah, which is called “the opening” is considered part of Al Bakarah, and not a separate chapter, then that makes one less chapter (Chapter One) as it is integrated into Al Bakarah (Chapter Two). Then, if the three chapters at the end are combined, that would make two less chapters again. The reason someone would think of combining these three chapters is that they are commonly recited together in the prayers, Al-Ikhlas, is the Chapter of Unity (112), then the two Al-Muwaidhatain (sic), or Chapter 113 and 114 follow it. That would result in the Quran having only 111 chapters. Or one could speculate, perhaps the chapter(s) that does (do) not begin with “Bismillahir rahman ir raheem”, which may be only one or two, could be joined with the Sura or Chapter preceding it (them), which does (do) begin with “Bismillahir rahman ir raheem”. Another fact, when people recite the Qur’an, they do not pronounce the Chapter titles. This means that although we say that they are part of the Mushaf, they are not part of the Quranic recitation. This shows that there is a difference between “the Book” and the recitation. (If this is not understood, it could serve as a point of dissention, as happened with the storm about what Yusuf Estes had said or not said (or what others say he said) regarding the Mushaf (not) being the Qur’an; definitely we can say that “translations” of the Mushaf are not Qur’an if they generally contain more non-Arabic than Arabic e.g. when verses and additional explanations in other languages exceed the Arabic writing, the book becomes a book of Tafsir and is not the Qur’an or a mushaf anymore; but these also have to be taken proper care of and respected.)
The book form (Mushaf) is the (Arabic) Quran plus the added chapter titles, as well as the numbers which follow the verses and even the Islamic art which decorates the pages of the Mushaf. (Even blank pages in the book are part of the Mushaf and should not be cut, thrown away or defiled).The numbers which follow the verses are also sometimes not the same in every copy of the Quran because they are arranged slightly differently. Just as I explained about how chapters might be combined, but not rearranged so that they do not flow smoothly or are out of order, verses could also be moved from the beginning of one chapter to the end of the preceding chapter (only) or vice versa, or two verses could be combined (of which there is an example in the first two pages of the Quran e.g. comparing Warsh and Hafs pages.) If two verses are combined, that would result in fewer verses, though they would be read according to the rules for recitation in any case. The addition of Tashkeel, or vowel marks, is another addition made to the Mushaf at one point in history, to make it easier for non-Arabs to read, because people today are not proficient in Arabic or the (Qiraat) as were the majority of literate earlier Muslims. In any and all cases, the rules of recitation apply. There are different ways to read (Qirras) but only one Quran. We recognize that the Chapter titles and numbering are not part of the recitation, nor are the “Bismillahir rahman ir raheem” necessarily recited, if one continues (in the recitation) from one chapter to the other without a stop. It is Sunnah to recite the “basmalah”, but not fard (obligatory) and Allah knows best. Therefore, some people say that the “basmalah” is not part of the chapter, or it is not the first verse of any Chapter. Some people think the Basmallah is a verse, not an invocation only; therefore, this helps explain why there might be different numbers of verses, if each “basmallah” is either counted as a verse or is not counted as a verse. I personally prefer the view that it isn’t a verse, but is pronounced for seeking Allah’s blessing (E.g. “Bismillahir rahman ir raheem” means, “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, Most Merciful”), which is one popular view. We know that the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, recited it.
Why did the Muslims have different arrangement of the Quran, so that there are different Chapter titles and some verses appear in one Chapter either before or after the Chapter it will appear in a different comparative arrangement? This is a question which is interesting to Muslims who are curious about the subject, but it is not detrimental. The only thing which would be detrimental to the Qur’an’s authenticity is if verses or chapters are missing or rearranged so that they are not in proper order; this has never been the case. Each verse is present and in proper order (in The Book), no matter which Qiraat or style one prefers. The recitation follows “the book” in its order, chapter and verse.
The “Satanic Verses”
“Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.”
(Quran, Ch: 13, V: 39)
We have heard about the “Satanic Verses” which people suppose existed, or which it is believed by some are verses which have been “thrown out” of the Quran. This is not true; there are no “satanic” verses. Muslims do not believe they existed.
The first instance, I paraphrase a verse which means, the Quran is the Word of Allah; nothing can come from before it or from behind it, it is unchanged since the beginnings of revelation.
”…Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in, then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” From Ch: 22, V: 52.
Some people believe that CH: 22, V:52 implies that there are “Satanic” or other verses which have been thrown out; I don’t know what Salman Rushdie, the apostate has to say about the Qur’an, never having read his so-called novel or watched him (on the subject), but I do know that CH:22, V:52, suggests no such thing.
The Satan only whispers to people to confuse them, or attempting to mislead them, but he cannot mislead whom Allah guides; we seek Allah’s protection from the accursed one. People should not believe what any non-Muslims say regarding “Satanic verses”, verses which have been abrogated, which are (not) “lost”, or any such false claims. They can ask the Muslim scholars about these issues, which are easily clarified. In the end, whatever they ask, which causes them confusion or concern, they should ask “those who know”, e.g. the learned Muslims. Don’t assume that just because there are accusations, that these things are detrimental to Muslims’ beliefs, or that Muslims cannot answer these accusations. Muslims have all the resources and information before them and are not afraid of returning to the sources to find answers to such questions, or reassurances to seekers of truth regards any misgivings people may have.
I don’t claim to be a ‘wise person’ or a’alim (Islamic scholar), therefore I ask the reader to clarify issues or ask the Muslim scholars or search Islamic websites for information. Please pass on this advice, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, as well as encouragement to read my blog. I thank you for your time.
J. D-N
Questions:
1 - Chapter 33, Verse 6 can be read two different ways?
2 - Did Abdullah bin Mas’ud really say, “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Masahif that are with you, and conceal them”?
3 - Did both Ubay bin Ka’b and Abdullah bin Mas’ud warn about Zayd ibn Thabit?
Notes:
Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol.2, p.444.
Jami al-Tirmidhi, 3104
Any questions, suggestions and/or corrections could be sent to me at: Diamondraw4Real@gmail.com/
