# Islamic History & Archaeology



## M. Sarmad

It has been said that daring as it is to investigate the unknown, even more so it is to question the known. Many of the so-called "known facts" in the history of nascent Islam are little more than pious assumptions or even pious wishes which through persistent repetition by the long chain of the generations of Muslims, have acquired the "patina" if not the status of the "articles of faith".
An attempt to interpret the history of Islam, especially the history of its first century, is like stepping into a mine field; it's seething with controversy, diatribes and polemics, and one may approach it only extremely gingerly. Nevertheless, interpretation remains basic to the understanding of history. Without interpretation, history becomes a mass of uncoordinated information and a catalogue of "dead" events and dates unrelated to each other. Yet these "dead" events bounce back to life when effects are related to causes, and a concatenation of facts is established. A fact in correlation with other facts has historical significance; in isolation it may be meaningless. ...


*The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the controversial events of the early Islamic era , but to discuss the methodologies and techniques used by the early historians and a critical examination of them ...*

Before discussing the Early Muslim Historians , I would like you guys ,@jaibi @Jazzbot @Alpha1 @danish falcon @FaujHistorian @Pakistanisage @Zarvan @Talon and others , to discuss archaeological evidences from the first century of Hijra (7th century)
To start with ;
*Archaeological Record Of Early Days of Islam : *

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
6


----------



## M. Sarmad



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## M. Sarmad



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pinnacle

superb.... thanks alot for sharing

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Now as we have almost no inscriptions / original writings that can be dated back to the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or the rightly guided caliphs (Khulfa e Rashideen) , All the knowledge of that time and those persons have reached us through 3 different sources(textual) , compiled in later times ;

*1) The Holy Quran* (word of Allah)
*2) The Ahadith* (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh)
*3) The History Texts* (crystallization of popular beliefs)

This led the skeptical scholars like Crone, Wansbrough, and Nevo to argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150–300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events hence unreliable . They also point out that the earliest account of Muhammad's life by Ibn Ishaq was written about a century after Muhammad died and all later narratives by Islamic biographers contain far more details and embellishments about events which are entirely lacking in Ibn Ishaq's text . Also the hadith books were written at least two centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) .
These objections from such scholars are somewhat genuine but the conclusions drawn by them are easily refutable . To understand this in detail , one must try to find answers to following questions first :

*1) *_When was the Holy Quran compiled (into a Book form) ? Has the "Original Text" reached us ?_
*2)*_ When and Why were the Hadith Books written ? _
*3)*_ Who wrote the Islamic History and for whom ?_

*1) HISTORY OF THE QURAN :*

In the 19th century the Danish scholar Theodor Nöldeke, in his influential _Geschichte des Qorans_ (1860; “History of the Qurʾān”), largely rejected the Islamic understanding of the process whereby the text of the Qurʾān was compiled. Since then others, such as I. Goldziher, Richard Bell, and Jeffrey and W.M. Watt, have challenged the traditional Islamic perspective, while more recently John Wansbrough and John Burton have completely rejected pious traditions concerning the compilation of the Qurʾān. Although Burton believed that Muhammad himself sanctioned a complete text of the Qurʾān before his death, Wansbrough argued that there was no definitive text until the 9th century. *The various Western views have all been addressed by contemporary Muslim scholars, *who have based their responses on the earliest historical sources and archaeological evidence as well as on oral tradition, but these views still dominate much of the academic study of the Qurʾān in the West.
Qur'an (sacred text) :: Compilation -- Encyclopedia Britannica



Muslim perspective :
Category: The Authenticity and Preservation of the Holy Quran - The Religion of Islam

How Do We Know the Quran is Unchanged? | Lost Islamic History

Examining The Qur'an

​----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​*The Dome of the Rock* is the oldest Islamic monument that stands today and certainly one of the most beautiful. It also boasts the oldest surviving mihrab (niche indicating the direction of Mecca) in the world.
*The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock in fact represent the earliest known dated passages from the Qur'an *(72 after the Hijra or 691–692 CE)





























*INSCRIPTIONS ON THE INNER OCTAGONAL ARCADE*

*S* In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has
no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has
Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.
*SE* Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be
on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
*E* nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of
Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
*NE* better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
*N* servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
*NW* son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies,
and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of
the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
*W *When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God
save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,
*SW* the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book
differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso
disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!

*INSCRIPTIONS ON THE OUTER OCTAGONAL ARCADE*


*S* In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no
associate. Say: He is God, the One! God, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there
is none comparable unto Him. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.
*SW* In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God.
He is One. He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God.
Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
*W *O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a
worthy salutation. In the name of God, the Merciful
the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. Praise be to
*NW *God, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath
no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend
through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence. Muḥammad is the Messenger of
*N *God, the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be
on him, and may God have mercy. In the name of God, the Merciful
the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate.
*NE* Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth. And He giveth death; and He has
Power over all things. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be
on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment on behalf of his people.
*E *In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One.
He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be
on him. The dome was built by servant of God ʿAbd
*SE* [Allah the Imam al-Ma'mun, Commander] of the Faithful, in the year two and seventy. May God accept from him and be content
with him. Amen, Lord of the worlds, praise be to God.

*INSCRIPTIONS AT THE EASTERN ENTRANCE*


In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to God other than Whom there is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal, the Originator of the heavens and the earth and the Light of the heavens
and the earth and the Pillar of the heavens and the earth, the One, the eternally Besought of all; He begotteth not nor was begotten and there is none comparable unto Him, Owner of Sovereignty!
Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt, all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You, and its fate is (determined) by You, Lord of glory
the Merciful, the Compassionate. He hath prescribed for Himself mercy, and His mercy embraceth all things; May He be glorified and exalted. As for what the polytheists associate (with You), we ask You, oh God by
Your mercy and by Your beautiful names and by Your noble face and Your awesome power and Your perfect word, on which are based the heavens and the earth and
through which we are preserved by Your mercy from Satan and are saved from Your punishment (on) the Day of Judgment and by Your abundant favour and by Your great grace and forbearance and omnipotence
and forgiveness and liberality, that You bless Muḥammad, Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and ....
From the servant of Allah ʿAbdullah al-Ma'mun al-Imam, Commander of the Faithful, may Allah prolongs its duration! In the rule of the brother of Commander of the Faithful Abu Ishaq, son of Commander of the Faithful
al-Rashid, that Allah makes it last. And (this work) had place by the hands of Salih b. Yaḥya, the _mawali_ of Commander of the Faithful, in the month of _Rabi‘ al-Akhir_ of year 216.
*INSCRIPTIONS AT THE NORTHERN PORTAL*


In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God than Whom there is no god but He. The Living, the Eternal; He has no associate, the One, the eternally Besought of all - He
begetteth not nor was begotten, and there is none comparable unto Him. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His messenger whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion
however much idolators may be averse. We believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muḥammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him
we have surrendered. The blessing of God be upon Muḥammad, His servant and His prophet, and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and His blessing and His forgiveness and His acceptance.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
7


----------



## M. Sarmad

*OTHER INSCRIPTIONS:*

*Dated Inscriptions From First Century Of Hijra*




* Inscriptions Near Madinah Of The Early Years Of Hijra [c. 4 AH]*.


*Inscription A*
*Inscription B*
*Inscription C*
These set of inscriptions from near Madinah, although written in a striking Kufic script, bear no date. They have been dated _c_. 4 AH using the internal evidence. These set of inscriptions are also the earliest to mention the names of Abu Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿAli and Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbdullah, etc.




*An Arabic Inscription From Turkey, 22 AH / 642-3 CE*.

An inscription from Batman Su (or Nymphæus), Turkey. Although this inscription had generated a lot of discussion but it failed to provide a sustained interested due to lack of a photograph.




*Arabic Graffito From Muthallath (Near Yanbu’), 23 AH / 643-4 CE*.

This inscription written in old _kufic_ script is interesting as it leaves out tantalizing detail of its dating.




*The Inscription Of Zuhayr - The Earliest Dated Ḥijāzī Inscription, 24 AH / 644 CE*.

This is the earliest dated _ḥijāzī_ inscription. It was written by Zuhayr "at the time of ʿUmar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The _Discovery Channel_ alsomentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.

*



Arabic Graffito From Wādī Khushayba, S. W. Arabia (Near Najrān), 27 AH / 648 CE*.

This inscription was found by a Japanese team doing archaeological surveys in South Western Arabia.




*An Arabic Inscription From Cyprus, 29 AH / 650 CE*.

Dated to _Ramaḍan_, 29 AH / May, 650 CE. No photograph was provided for this inscription, although the content was given. Recently, this inscription was discussed at length by Amikam Elad who has shown using the historical sources that it is a genuine inscription.




*Tombstone Of *‘*Abd al-Raḥmān Ibn Khair al-Ḥajrī, 31 AH / 652 CE*.

This is perhaps the most celebrated inscription, quoted often in the references dealing with Arabic inscriptions and palaeography.




*Arabic Inscription On The Darb Zubayda Caravan Route, 40 AH / 660-661 CE*.

This inscription was found on the Darb Zubayda caravan route at Wādī 'l-Shamiya during an archaeological survey in 1970s.




*Greek Inscription In The Baths Of Hammat Gader, 42 AH / 662-63 CE*.

The valley of Hammat Gader is famous for naturally cold and hot springs known for their therapeutic powers. These once filled the large and small pools of an early Byzantine spa, supplying it with hot and cold waters. The Greek inscription from the time of the Umayyad caliph Muʿāwiya refers to the restoration of the baths.




*Two Seals From The Time Of Muʿāwiya Bin Abī Sufyān, c. 44 AH / 664 CE*.

Umayyad caliph Muʿāwiya established two _diwans_ in his administration - _Diwan al-Rasa‘il_ and _Diwan al-Khatam_. The former looked after correspondence received by caliph and drafted his replies. This was handled by his _katib _(secretary). Once a document had been drafted, it was passed on to the _Diwan al-Khatam, _or “office of the seal”, where two or more copies of each document were made and sealed, at least one to be deposited in the archives while the other was checked, sealed and dispatched to its recipient. This arrangement was set up as a means of preventing forgeries. After Muʿāwiya was recognised as head of the Muslim community he named ʿAbd Allāh b. Amīr Governor of Baṣra for the second time in 41 AH, where he served until his dismissal in 44 AH. These seals would have validated both the documents delivered to ʿAbd Allāh and the official copy that was kept in the _Diwan al-Khatam_.

​

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## M. Sarmad

*Arabic Graffito From Wādī Sabil, 46 AH / 666 CE*.

This graffito was found in Wādī Sabil during the Philby-Ryckmans-Lippens expedition. The inscription shows a dot below ب. This is the third earliest dated inscription.




*Arabic Graffito On The Darb Zubayda Caravan Route, 52 AH / 672 CE*.

This inscription was found on the Darb Zubayda caravan route at al-Khashna during an archaeological survey in 1970s.




* Inscription On The Dam Built By Caliph Muʿāwiya, 58 AH / 678 CE.*

It is interesting to note that this inscription shows the use of consonantal points for ي, ب، ن، ث، خ، ف and ت.




*Arabic Graffito Near Karbala In Iraq, 64 AH / 683-684 CE*.

This inscription mentions the name of the three well-known angels in Islam, viz., Gabriel, Michael and Israfil whose Lord is Allah.




*A Tiraz Inscription From The Time Of Marwan I, 64-65 AH / 683-685 CE*.

A band of inscriptions usually on textiles is called the _tiraz_. The silk with the _tiraz_ inscription in the name of Marwan, one of the Umayyad caliphs, exists in three pieces, all found in Egypt, is dated to the time of Marwan ibn al-Hakam. This dating makes it the earliest known Islamic textile.




*Arabic Inscription In A Bronze Can, 69 AH / 688-689 CE*.

A bronze can with an inscription placed around the rim, perhaps originating from Basra during the Umayyad period.

*



Inscription On A Bridge In Fustāt By The Governor ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Marwān, 69 AH / 688-689 CE*.

This inscription was first attested by Maqrīzī (_d_. 845 AH / 1442 CE).




*Tombstone Of *ʿ*Abāssa Bint Juraij, 71 AH / 691 CE*.

An interesting inscription that mentions the name of Prophet Muḥammad along with the phrase "_ahl al-Islām_". It also mentions the _sh__ahadah_. Interestingly, Crone and Cook (Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977, Cambridge University Press) chose to ignore this inscription only to conclude that the word "Islam" was used only in the eighth century CE!




*The Arabic Islamic Inscriptions On The Dome Of The Rock In Jerusalem, 72 AH / 692 CE*.

The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock can be rightly called as the "big-daddy" of all the first century Islamic inscriptions. Built by the Umayyad Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik, these inscriptions have copious amount of Qur'anic verses.




*The Copper Plaque Inscriptions At The Dome Of The Rock In Jerusalem, 72 AH / 692 CE*.

The Arabic inscriptions in copper plaques at the eastern entrance and the northern portal of the Dome of the Rock are not as well known as the ones inscribed inside the Dome of the Rock. Inscribed by the Umayyad Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik, these inscriptions have five Qur'anic verses quoted partially.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## M. Sarmad

*The ʿAqabah Inscription From The Time Of ʿAbd al-Malik, 73 AH / 692-693 CE*.

This is the oldest inscription in Islam relating to the inaugral of a road and it is also the second longest and almost the fullest inscription from the time of ʿAbd al-Malik after that of theDome of the Rock in Jerusalem. This inscription furnishes clear evidence that ʿAbd al-Malik did not satisfy himself with repairing the old roads and maintaining them in a fit state of traffic, but that he also thought of, and at least in this instance executed enterprises on a large scale.




*A Rock Inscription From Makkah Containing Qur'an 38:26, 80 AH / 699-700 CE*.

The inscription contains complete Qur'an 38:26.




* A Rock Inscription From Makkah Containing Qur’an 56:28-40, 80 AH / 699-700 CE*.

The inscription contains complete Qur'an 56:28-40 with an addition of the phrase "_What will be the Companions of the Right Hand_" between verses 38 and 39 perhaps to give a fitting conclusion to the inscription.




* A Rock Inscription From Makkah Containing Qur'an 4:87, 80 AH / 699-700 CE*.

The inscription contains complete Qur'an 4:87.




*A Rock Inscription From Makkah, 80 AH / 699-700 CE*.

The long, slender and slightly inclined form of writing is reminiscent of _ḥijāzī_ script.




*The Tombstone Of Yaḥya Bin Al-Ḥakam, c. 80 AH / 699-700 CE*.

Moshe Sharon, who published this inscription, inclines to the view that the person mentioned in this inscription is Yaḥya b. al-Ḥakam, uncle of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik. The date is deduced from the fact that Yaḥya b. al-Ḥakam died _c._ 80 AH / 699-700 CE.




*The Qasr Burquʿ Building Inscription Of Prince Al-Walīd Dated 81 AH / 700 CE*.

This building inscription in Qasr Burquʿ was built by al-Walīd before his ascension to the throne (705-715 CE).



*A Rock Inscription From Makkah Dated 84 AH / 703-704 CE*.
It contains a mixture of verses 4:1, 2:21 and 2:189.



*A Rock Inscription From Makkah Containing Qur'an 20:130, 84 AH / 703-704 CE*.​

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M. Sarmad

*Milestone From Golan From The Time Of ʿAbd al-Malik - 1, 85 AH / 704 CE*.
A dated milestone at 52 miles from Damascus found in the village of Fīq (or Afīq) in Golan
.



*Milestone From Golan From The Time Of ʿAbd al-Malik - 2, 85 AH / 704 CE*.A dated milestone at 53 miles from Damascus found in the village of Fīq (or Afīq) in Golan.



*Inscription In A Mosque In Damascus, Built By Caliph Walīd, 86-87 AH / 705-706 CE*.This inscription is no longer extant and it is reported to us in two versions: a shorter one by Masʿūdī and a longer one by Muḥammad ibn Shākir al-Kutubī (_d_. 1363 CE).



*The Inscription On The Turban Of Samuel Bin Musa, 88 AH / 707 CE*.
An interesting woven inscription from Egypt and it is the second earliest dated Islamic textile after the _tiraz_ inscription. The inscription was done on a turban for Samuel b. Musa, perhaps a Jew or a Christian, in the year 88 AH.



*The Kasr Kharana Inscription, 92 AH / 710 CE*.
This inscription, a pious and moving invocation, is full of Qur'anic flavour.



*Jabal Usays (Syria) Inscription Containing First Line Of The Throne Verse (Qur'an 2:255), 93 AH / 711 CE*.



*A Dedicatory Inscription On An Earthen Bowl For Sulaymān Bin ʿAbd al-Malik, 96 AH / 715 CE*.This earthen bowl was manufactured for Prince Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik before his ascension to the throne 96-98 AH / 715-717 CE.



*Glass Vessel With Stamp At Beit Shean From The Time Of Sulaymān Bin ʿAbd al-Malik, 98 AH / 716 CE*.This deals with dated and undated glass vessels from Beit Shean that remind people of honesty and justice when dealing with customers.



*A Rock Inscription From Makkah Dated 98 AH / 716-717 CE*.
It quotes part of 65:3 as it is and the rest of the verse is slightly modified without changing the meaning.



*An Arabic Inscription From Khirbat Nitil, 100 AH / 718-719 CE*.
This inscription was discovered in 1886 at the archaeological site of Khirbat Nitil. The eight lines are located in an inner vaulted room in the western wall. The inscription shows a dot below for غ. The inscription mentions _hawḍ Muḥammad_, i.e., the pool of Prophet Muḥammad in the Paradise, from which the believers will drink. This pool is mentioned in many _ḥadīths_.*Arabic Inscription On A Dam Built By Caliph Muʿāwiya (Madinah, Saudi Arabia), 40–60 AH / 661–80 CE*.Written in the _kufic_ script. This inscription shows the use of consonantal point for ت

​

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

*Concise List Of Arabic Manuscripts Of The Qur'ān Attributable To The First Century Hijra*
*











*​*The Qur'anic Manuscripts*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M. Sarmad

*The Oldest Quran in the World*


















*In an obscure corner of the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, lies one of Islam’s most sacred relics - the world’s oldest Koran.*
It is a reminder of the role which Central Asia once played in Muslim history - a fact often overlooked after seven decades of Soviet-imposed atheism.

The library where the Koran is kept is in an area of old Tashkent known as Hast-Imam, well off the beaten track for most visitors to this city.

It lies down a series of dusty lanes, near the grave of a 10th century scholar, Kaffel-Shashi.

The Mufti of Uzbekistan, the country’s highest religious leader, has his offices there, in the courtyard of an old madrassa.

Just across the road stands a non-descript mosque and the equally unremarkable Mui-Mubarak, or “Sacred Hair”, madrassa, which houses a rarely seen hair of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, as well as one of Central Asia’s most important collections of historical works.

”There are approximately 20,000 books and 3000 manuscripts in this library,” said Ikram Akhmedov, a young assistant in the mufti’s office.

”They deal with mediaeval history, astronomy and medicine. There are also commentaries on the Koran and books of law. But the oldest book here is the Othman Koran from the seventh century.”

Sacred verses






The Othman Koran was compiled in Medina by Othman, the third caliph or Muslim leader.

Before him, the sacred verses which Muslims believe God gave to Muhammad were memorised, or written on pieces of wood or camel bone.

To prevent disputes about which verses should be considered divinely inspired, Othman had this definitive version compiled. It was completed in the year 651, only 19 years after Muhammad’s death.

This priceless Koran is kept in a special glass-fronted vault built into the wall of a tiny inner room.

About one-third of the original survives - about 250 pages - a huge volume written in a bold Arabic script.

”The Koran was written on deerskin,” said Mr Akhmedov. “It was written in Hejaz in Saudi Arabia, so the script is Hejazi, similar to Kufic script.”

It is said that Caliph Othman made five copies of the original Koran. A partial Koran now in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul is said to be another of these original copies.

Historical text






Othman was murdered by a rebellious mob while he was reading his book. A dark stain on its pages is thought to be the caliph’s blood.

It was Othman’s murder that precipitated the Shia-Sunni divide which has split the Muslim world ever since.

Later disputes over the succession led to a division between the mainstream Sunnis, and supporters of Othman’s immediate successor, Ali, who became Shias.

The story of how the Othman Koran came to Tashkent is a remarkable one.

After Othman’s death it is believed it was taken by Caliph Ali to Kufa, in modern Iraq. Seven hundred years later, when the Central Asian conqueror, Tamerlane, laid waste to the region, he found the Koran and took it home to grace his splendid capital, Samarkand.

It stayed there for more than four centuries, until the Russians conquered Samarkand in the 1868. The Russian governor then sent the Othman Koran to St Petersburg where it was kept in the Imperial Library.

But after the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin was anxious to win over the Muslims of Russia and Central Asia. Initially he sent the Koran to Ufa in modern Bashkortostan.

But finally, after repeated appeals from the Muslims of Tashkent, it was returned once more to Central Asia in 1924. It has remained in Tashkent ever since.

Visiting dignitaries from the Muslim world often turn up to see the Othman Koran in the depths of old Tashkent, so it is odd that it is still kept in such an out of the way location.

But the authoritarian Uzbek government has inherited a Soviet-era distrust of Islam, and still views much of its own Islamic history with suspicion.

The mufti’s official religious establishment is closely watched and takes care not to attract too much attention to itself.

As a result, its greatest treasure, the world’s oldest Koran, continues to sit quietly in the medieval quarter of old Tashkent.

_Source: BBC News and www.islamicity.com_


However based on orthographic and palaeographic studies, the manuscript probably dates to the 2nd century hijra or the 8th century CE, possibly as late as the beginning of the 9th century CE
Samarkand Kufic Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only Other Quran attributed to Usman :





Topkapi manuscript - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also the Sana'a palimpsest in Yemen is one of the oldest Qur'anic manuscripts in existence. Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment containing the lower text to before 671 AD with a 99% accuracy





Sana'a manuscript - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
6


----------



## M. Sarmad

@Jazzbot @jaibi @danish falcon @Alpha1.... no contribution ??

Quran is the only "book" that all Muslims believe is "unchanged" & "perfect" , And as discussed earlier , there are enough reasons to believe in this ....
Now the question arises that despite believing in One Allah , Same Quran & One Prophet (pbuh) , Why do the Muslims kill each other in the name of the same religion (i.e Islam) which they all follow ???

The answer seems to be very simple , They believe in different collections of *Ahadith* (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh) , often highly contradicting, and they follow different versions of the `same` Islamic History ...

But things might not be that simple , The first Islamic civil war (656-661 CE) , also known as the First Fitna , was fought among the Muslims who did not follow different Ahadith or versions of history , They were mostly companions and relatives of the prophet (pbuh) who had learnt Islam directly from the Messenger of Allah !! They did not challenge each other`s faith , They contested for the leadership of the newly born Ummah .. The divide in the Muslims was purely "political" in the beginning , which became "religious" with the passage of time . Ali (r.a) was a cousin and son in law of Muhammad (pbuh) , who fought against Aisha (r.a) [ the beloved wife of prophet (pbuh)] and Zubair bin Awwam (r.a)[also a cousin of prophet as well as Ali himself] in 656 AD , in the "battle of camel" .. Later Ali r.a had to fight Muaviyyah in "battle of siffeen" , Muaviyyah was brother in law of Muhammad (pbuh) and a distant cousin .. So the participants of the First Fitna were all related to each other , and no one tried to prove his superiority over the other claiming a kinship to Muhammad (pbuh) and "religion" stayed out of politics ..

But in the Second Islamic Civil war (ended 692 AD) , the religion could not stay out of politics . Following the Murder of Imam Hussain and almost all the male members of family of prophet (pbuh) in "battle of kerbala" by the Ummayad troops of Yazid (son of Muaviyyah) in 680 AD(The battle is often cited as the definitive break between the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam) , Yazid faced a second revolt from Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who was the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and the son of Asma bint Abu Bakr. Ibn al-Zubayr's rebellion was seen by many as an attempt to return to the pristine values of the early Islamic community, and his revolt was welcomed by a number of parties that were unhappy with the Umayyad rule for various reasons.

This was the first time that the name of "Muhammad" was used for political purposes . As is evident from archaeological record , The name of Muhammad was not minted on coins or other inscriptions before Abdullah Bin Zubair gained control of Hijaz . The oldest coins with shahada of prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) are from his time . His opponent and the Ummayad leader Abdul Malik , followed him and started using the name of prophet on coins and other inscriptions (a practice his predecessors never approved of) .* He went on to build a alternative ka`ba in jerusalem as the Ummayads had lost control of Makkah ; The famous Dome Of The Rock , and this was the time when he ordered compiling of Ahadith for political purposes , something forbidden by the messenger of Allah and the Khulfa e Rashideen , .... *



*al-Ya`qubi* writes is in his *Tareekh* :

_`*Abd al-Malik prevented the people of Sham from the hajj and this is because Ibn al-Zubayr was taking the pledge of allegience from the pilgrims. When `Abd al-Malik had found out about this, he prevented them from setting out to Makkah. But the people protested and said: "Do you prevent us from doing the pilgrimage to the Sacred House of Allah while it is a duty from Allah upon us ?" He said: "Here is Ibn Shihabuddin al-Zuhri narrating to you that the Messenger of Allah said: "The caravans should not be set out except for three mosques, the Sacred Mosque, my present Mosque and the Mosque of Jerusalem" [which] stands for the Sacred Mosque for you. And here is the Rock on [which] it is narrated that the Prophet set his foot before ascending to the heavens, it stands for the Ka`bah. Then he built a Dome on the Rock, suspended silk curtains on it and appointed servants for it. And told the people to revolve around it like they revolve around the Ka`bah and so it was during the rule of Bani Umayyah*_( Ahmad b. Abu Ya`qub Ibn Wadih al-Ya`qubi (Ed. M. T. Houtsma), Tarikh, 1883, Volume II, Leiden, p. 311)

Now we have two options
1) Reject this allegation saying that Al Yaqubi was a Shia and this is anti ummayad propaganda , or
2) Try to further investigate into it and see if this claim is backed by other sources or historical records

Going by option number 2 , lets see what some orientalists have to say


In the passage of his _Muhammedanische Studien_, *Goldziher* puts forward in detail the theory that Umayyad caliph *`Abd al-Malik*, by erecting the* Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, intended to outsmart his rival `Abdallah b. al-Zubayr, who exploited the holiness of Makkah, his capital, for his own political ends. Goldziher wrote:*

*When the Umayyad Caliph `Abd al-Malik wished the stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival `Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had to recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that the obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka`ba ordained in Islamic Law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may make pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.(I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies* (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, pp. 44-45.)

Goldziher's theory had been adopted, uncritically or with some criticism, by many early orientalists and a few recent ones; some of them are Creswell ,Rippin , van Ess,and Elad.

Now again these are western sources and most of the Muslims will not be willing to accept them , lets try to find out what Muslims (Only Sunnis) have to say on this ...





Before going into details , One should know that who was *Ibn e Shihab Al Zuhri *as he is the one being accused of writing fabricated Ahadith for the Ummayad rulers ..

*Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri(d. 742 AD)* is regarded as one of the greatest Sunni authorities on Hadith. The leading critics of Hadith such as* Ibn al-Madini, Ibn Hibban, Abu Hatim, Al-Dhahabi *and* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani *are all agreed upon his indisputable authority . He can also be regarded as *the first Historian of Islam*



*Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri was the first one to compile Ahadees *[fath ul bari by ibne hajar]

*Imam Malik (d. 179) said, "The first one to utilise the isnad was Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri"* [Ibne abi Hatim Al Razi, aljarrah wa altadeel p.20 vol 1]

*So Ibn e Shihab Zuhri is actually the founding father of "Hadith Science" and the first one to compile Ahadith .. *
Al Zuhri is a main narrator of both , Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari (around 1700 ahadith from him in both)
Challenging his authority is challenging the whole "Science of Hadith" , and Al Yaqubi has accused him of writing fabricated Ahadith , so Al Yaqubi can very well be a Shia...
But Wait ...* Is he the only one who has accused Al Zuhri of Tadlees (hadith fabrication) ??
The answer is definitely "No"*

*Zuhri’s Tadlis is recorded in the following words: 
Imam Shaf‘i, Dara Qutani and many others have attributed Tadlis (Hadith Fabrication) to Zuhri.* (Ibn Hajar, Tabaqatu’l-Mudallisin, [Cairo: Maktabah Kulliyyat al-Azhar], pps. 32-3)

*Imam Malik also did not consider Al Zuhri trustworthy and thats why he does not narrate Zuhri`s solo traditions in his famous hadith collection "Muwatta"*


Some of the greatest Sunni scholars of all times did not consider Al Zuhri to be trustworthy

Then why blame Al Yaqubi alone ???

And .....
* Al-Zuhri himself is reported to have said: ‘We disapproved of recording knowledge [meaning hadith] until these rulers forced us to do so. After that we saw no reason to forbid Muslims to do so.’” *(Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, II, ii, p. 135)

Ibn e Saad is definitely a Sunni !! This confession by Al Zuhri himself is enough as a evidence when considered alongwith other similar reports


*Ibne Shihab al-Zuhri was the first historian who wrote the history of Islam under the direct order and fund of Abdul Malik. He also wrote Hadith collection. The works of al-Zuhri was one of the main source for al-Bukhari. al-Zuhri was attached to the royal family of Abdul Malik, and was the tutor of his sons.* (al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah," by Shibli part I, pp.13-17)

Shibli is also a "great" sunni historian

Among the students of al-Zuhri, two persons, namely* Musa Ibn Uqbah*, and* Mohammad Ibn Ishaq *became famous historians. The former was a slave of the house of Zubair. Although his history is not available today, it had been the most popular work on history for a long time. You will find its references in many history books on different subjects.

*The second student, Mohammad Ibn Ishaq is the most famous historian . His biography of the Prophet, called "Sirah Rasul Allah", is still the accredited authority on the subject in the shape that was given to it by Ibn Hisham, and is known as "al-Sirah of Ibn Hisham*".


*So Islamic Hadith and History books were first compiled under the direct order of Umayyah Kings for political purposes *.............





And* for those who think that prophet(pbuh) did not prohibit writing down Ahadith :*

*Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Quran, he should erase that and narrate(orally) from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire** (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Chapter 17, Number 7147).*


*There are other similar hadith reports, e.g., one from Abu Dawud, and another from Taqyid by al-Baghdadi confirming the Prophet’s prohibition on hadith writing and direction for erasure of any hadith*.[www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook.]


*According to one report, the first Caliph Abu Bakr burned his own notes of hadith (said to be some 500), after being very uneasy about these notes*.[ Rahim, M. Abdur, The History of Hadith Compilation (in Bengali), p. 290, quoted by Jamilul Bashar, “Sangsker” (in Bengali, means Reformation), published by Young Muslim Society, New York, 2002, pp. 11.]


* During the caliphate of Umer r.a, “the problem of hadith forgery was so serious that he prohibited hadith transmission altogether.”*[ Brown, Daniel W., 1996 (paperback 1999), op. cit., p. 96.]


So one can safely conclude
1) Prophet (pbuh) and Khulfa e Rashideen did not allow writing down of Ahadith
2) Ibn e Shihab was the first one to violate the sunnah of prophet
3) The Ummayad Rulers forced Ibn e Shihab Al Zuhri to write fabricated ahadith , which Zuhri did not want to write down



And *Allama Muhammad Iqbal* has described this in folowng words :

Iqbal notes in his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam,* even Abu Hanifah, regarded as “one of the greatest exponents of Muhammedan Law in Sunni Islam … made practically no use of … traditions”, even though there were collections available at that time made by other people no less than thirty years before his death. Nor did he collect any hadith for his use, unlike his peers Malik and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
Thus, according to Iqbal, “if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [Ahadith] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah].”*
[Iqbal, A. M., The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, First Indian Edition 1997, p. 137.]

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
3


----------



## Jazzbot

Azlan Haider said:


> @Jazzbot @jaibi @danish falcon @Alpha1.... no contribution ??




Yar, I am not expert at these things as I told you when we met. You are doing well, its a lot of stuff to read, so I have bookmarked this thread and I'm reading everything in detail. Keep it coming, I'll be watching this thread regularly from now onwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pinnacle

Azlan Haider said:


> @Jazzbot @jaibi @danish falcon @Alpha1.... no contribution ??
> 
> Quran is the only "book" that all Muslims believe is "unchanged" & "perfect" , And as discussed earlier , there are enough reasons to believe in this ....
> Now the question arises that despite believing in One Allah , Same Quran & One Prophet (pbuh) , Why do the Muslims kill each other in the name of the same religion (i.e Islam) which they all follow ???
> 
> The answer seems to be very simple , They believe in different collections of *Ahadith* (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh) , often highly contradicting, and they follow different versions of the `same` Islamic History ...
> 
> But things might not be that simple , The first Islamic civil war (656-661 CE) , also known as the First Fitna , was fought among the Muslims who did not follow different Ahadith or versions of history , They were mostly companions and relatives of the prophet (pbuh) who had learnt Islam directly from the Messenger of Allah !! They did not challenge each other`s faith , They contested for the leadership of the newly born Ummah .. The divide in the Muslims was purely "political" in the beginning , which became "religious" with the passage of time . Ali (r.a) was a cousin and son in law of Muhammad (pbuh) , who fought against Aisha (r.a) [ the beloved wife of prophet (pbuh)] and Zubair bin Awwam (r.a)[also a cousin of prophet as well as Ali himself] in 656 AD , in the "battle of camel" .. Later Ali r.a had to fight Muaviyyah in "battle of siffeen" , Muaviyyah was brother in law of Muhammad (pbuh) and a distant cousin .. So the participants of the First Fitna were all related to each other , and no one tried to prove his superiority over the other claiming a kinship to Muhammad (pbuh) and "religion" stayed out of politics ..
> 
> But in the Second Islamic Civil war (ended 692 AD) , the religion could not stay out of politics . Following the Murder of Imam Hussain and almost all the male members of family of prophet (pbuh) in "battle of kerbala" by the Ummayad troops of Yazid (son of Muaviyyah) in 680 AD(The battle is often cited as the definitive break between the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam) , Yazid faced a second revolt from Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who was the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and the son of Asma bint Abu Bakr. Ibn al-Zubayr's rebellion was seen by many as an attempt to return to the pristine values of the early Islamic community, and his revolt was welcomed by a number of parties that were unhappy with the Umayyad rule for various reasons.
> 
> This was the first time that the name of "Muhammad" was used for political purposes . As is evident from archaeological record , The name of Muhammad was not minted on coins or other inscriptions before Abdullah Bin Zubair gained control of Hijaz . The oldest coins with shahada of prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) are from his time . His opponent and the Ummayad leader Abdul Malik , followed him and started using the name of prophet on coins and other inscriptions (a practice his predecessors never approved of) .* He went on to build a alternative ka`ba in jerusalem as the Ummayads had lost control of Makkah ; The famous Dome Of The Rock , and this was the time when he ordered compiling of Ahadith for political purposes , something forbidden by the messenger of Allah and the Khulfa e Rashideen , .... *
> 
> 
> 
> *al-Ya`qubi* writes is in his *Tareekh* :
> 
> _`*Abd al-Malik prevented the people of Sham from the hajj and this is because Ibn al-Zubayr was taking the pledge of allegience from the pilgrims. When `Abd al-Malik had found out about this, he prevented them from setting out to Makkah. But the people protested and said: "Do you prevent us from doing the pilgrimage to the Sacred House of Allah while it is a duty from Allah upon us ?" He said: "Here is Ibn Shihabuddin al-Zuhri narrating to you that the Messenger of Allah said: "The caravans should not be set out except for three mosques, the Sacred Mosque, my present Mosque and the Mosque of Jerusalem" [which] stands for the Sacred Mosque for you. And here is the Rock on [which] it is narrated that the Prophet set his foot before ascending to the heavens, it stands for the Ka`bah. Then he built a Dome on the Rock, suspended silk curtains on it and appointed servants for it. And told the people to revolve around it like they revolve around the Ka`bah and so it was during the rule of Bani Umayyah*_( Ahmad b. Abu Ya`qub Ibn Wadih al-Ya`qubi (Ed. M. T. Houtsma), Tarikh, 1883, Volume II, Leiden, p. 311)
> 
> Now we have two options
> 1) Reject this allegation saying that Al Yaqubi was a Shia and this is anti ummayad propaganda , or
> 2) Try to further investigate into it and see if this claim is backed by other sources or historical records
> 
> Going by option number 2 , lets see what some orientalists have to say
> 
> 
> In the passage of his _Muhammedanische Studien_, *Goldziher* puts forward in detail the theory that Umayyad caliph *`Abd al-Malik*, by erecting the* Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, intended to outsmart his rival `Abdallah b. al-Zubayr, who exploited the holiness of Makkah, his capital, for his own political ends. Goldziher wrote:*
> 
> *When the Umayyad Caliph `Abd al-Malik wished the stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival `Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had to recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that the obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka`ba ordained in Islamic Law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may make pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.(I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies* (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, pp. 44-45.)
> 
> Goldziher's theory had been adopted, uncritically or with some criticism, by many early orientalists and a few recent ones; some of them are Creswell ,Rippin , van Ess,and Elad.
> 
> Now again these are western sources and most of the Muslims will not be willing to accept them , lets try to find out what Muslims (Only Sunnis) have to say on this ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before going into details , One should know that who was *Ibn e Shihab Al Zuhri *as he is the one being accused of writing fabricated Ahadith for the Ummayad rulers ..
> 
> *Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri(d. 742 AD)* is regarded as one of the greatest Sunni authorities on Hadith. The leading critics of Hadith such as* Ibn al-Madini, Ibn Hibban, Abu Hatim, Al-Dhahabi *and* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani *are all agreed upon his indisputable authority . He can also be regarded as *the first Historian of Islam*
> 
> 
> 
> *Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri was the first one to compile Ahadees *[fath ul bari by ibne hajar]
> 
> *Imam Malik (d. 179) said, "The first one to utilise the isnad was Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri"* [Ibne abi Hatim Al Razi, aljarrah wa altadeel p.20 vol 1]
> 
> *So Ibn e Shihab Zuhri is actually the founding father of "Hadith Science" and the first one to compile Ahadith .. *
> Al Zuhri is a main narrator of both , Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari (around 1700 ahadith from him in both)
> Challenging his authority is challenging the whole "Science of Hadith" , and Al Yaqubi has accused him of writing fabricated Ahadith , so Al Yaqubi can very well be a Shia...
> But Wait ...* Is he the only one who has accused Al Zuhri of Tadlees (hadith fabrication) ??
> The answer is definitely "No"*
> 
> *Zuhri’s Tadlis is recorded in the following words:
> Imam Shaf‘i, Dara Qutani and many others have attributed Tadlis (Hadith Fabrication) to Zuhri.* (Ibn Hajar, Tabaqatu’l-Mudallisin, [Cairo: Maktabah Kulliyyat al-Azhar], pps. 32-3)
> 
> *Imam Malik also did not consider Al Zuhri trustworthy and thats why he does not narrate Zuhri`s solo traditions in his famous hadith collection "Muwatta"*
> 
> 
> Some of the greatest Sunni scholars of all times did not consider Al Zuhri to be trustworthy
> 
> Then why blame Al Yaqubi alone ???
> 
> And .....
> * Al-Zuhri himself is reported to have said: ‘We disapproved of recording knowledge [meaning hadith] until these rulers forced us to do so. After that we saw no reason to forbid Muslims to do so.’” *(Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, II, ii, p. 135)
> 
> Ibn e Saad is definitely a Sunni !! This confession by Al Zuhri himself is enough as a evidence when considered alongwith other similar reports
> 
> 
> *Ibne Shihab al-Zuhri was the first historian who wrote the history of Islam under the direct order and fund of Abdul Malik. He also wrote Hadith collection. The works of al-Zuhri was one of the main source for al-Bukhari. al-Zuhri was attached to the royal family of Abdul Malik, and was the tutor of his sons.* (al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah," by Shibli part I, pp.13-17)
> 
> Shibli is also a "great" sunni historian
> 
> Among the students of al-Zuhri, two persons, namely* Musa Ibn Uqbah*, and* Mohammad Ibn Ishaq *became famous historians. The former was a slave of the house of Zubair. Although his history is not available today, it had been the most popular work on history for a long time. You will find its references in many history books on different subjects.
> 
> *The second student, Mohammad Ibn Ishaq is the most famous historian . His biography of the Prophet, called "Sirah Rasul Allah", is still the accredited authority on the subject in the shape that was given to it by Ibn Hisham, and is known as "al-Sirah of Ibn Hisham*".
> 
> 
> *So Islamic Hadith and History books were first compiled under the direct order of Umayyah Kings for political purposes *.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And* for those who think that prophet(pbuh) did not prohibit writing down Ahadith :*
> 
> *Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Quran, he should erase that and narrate(orally) from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire** (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Chapter 17, Number 7147).*
> 
> 
> *There are other similar hadith reports, e.g., one from Abu Dawud, and another from Taqyid by al-Baghdadi confirming the Prophet’s prohibition on hadith writing and direction for erasure of any hadith*.[www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook.]
> 
> 
> *According to one report, the first Caliph Abu Bakr burned his own notes of hadith (said to be some 500), after being very uneasy about these notes*.[ Rahim, M. Abdur, The History of Hadith Compilation (in Bengali), p. 290, quoted by Jamilul Bashar, “Sangsker” (in Bengali, means Reformation), published by Young Muslim Society, New York, 2002, pp. 11.]
> 
> 
> * During the caliphate of Umer r.a, “the problem of hadith forgery was so serious that he prohibited hadith transmission altogether.”*[ Brown, Daniel W., 1996 (paperback 1999), op. cit., p. 96.]
> 
> 
> So one can safely conclude
> 1) Prophet (pbuh) and Khulfa e Rashideen did not allow writing down of Ahadith
> 2) Ibn e Shihab was the first one to violate the sunnah of prophet
> 3) The Ummayad Rulers forced Ibn e Shihab Al Zuhri to write fabricated ahadith , which Zuhri did not want to write down
> 
> 
> 
> And *Allama Muhammad Iqbal* has described this in folowng words :
> 
> Iqbal notes in his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam,* even Abu Hanifah, regarded as “one of the greatest exponents of Muhammedan Law in Sunni Islam … made practically no use of … traditions”, even though there were collections available at that time made by other people no less than thirty years before his death. Nor did he collect any hadith for his use, unlike his peers Malik and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
> Thus, according to Iqbal, “if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [Ahadith] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah].”*
> [Iqbal, A. M., The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, First Indian Edition 1997, p. 137.]


@Azlan Haider now i have one question for you.. 
were ummayads shia or sunni? if they were shia then how ibn hasham al-zuhri wrote the 1700 sunni ahadith on the direct orders of the abdul malik.?

except khalifa, Umer-e-sani " Umer bin Abdul Aziz " all the ummayyad reigns are controversial .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M. Sarmad

danish falcon said:


> @Azlan Haider now i have one question for you..
> were ummayads shia or sunni? if they were shia then how ibn hasham al-zuhri wrote the 1700 sunni ahadith on the direct orders of the abdul malik.?
> 
> except khalifa, Umer-e-sani " Umer bin Abdul Aziz " all the ummayyad reigns are controversial .



Umayyad caliphate was One of the most "anti-shia" regimes in history . In fact Shiism in history only gained ground as a form of moral resistance to the Ummayads and their demands ..

Except for Umer bin Abdulaziz , who is said to have given the controversial Bagh e Fadak back to the family of prophet and he was the one who put an end to the evil practice of cursing Ali r.a and his progeny from the pulpits of the mosques around the kingdom in Jumma prayers ...

Saying that Umayyads were Shia is like saying that Ayatullah Khomeini was a Wahabi 

Hope that answers your question

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pinnacle

Azlan Haider said:


> Umayyad caliphate was One of the most "anti-shia" regime in history . In fact Shiism in history only gained ground as a form of moral resistance to the Ummayads and their demands ..
> 
> Except for Umer bin Abdulaziz , who is said to have given the controversial Bagh e Fadak back to the family of prophet and he was the one who put an end to the evil practice of cursing Ali r.a and his progeny from the pulpits of the mosques around the kingdom in Jumma prayers ...
> 
> Saying that Umayyads were Shia is like saying that Ayatullah Khomeini was a Wahabi
> 
> Hope that answers your question


thanks alot. i want to study history,facts and figures of the period, after the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) till Qarbala incident. please post some authentic links or articles if u have. thanks in advance

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

danish falcon said:


> thanks alot. i want to study history,facts and figures of the period, after the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) till Qarbala incident. please post some authentic links or articles if u have. thanks in advance



Perfect Islamic Books: Tareekh e Masodi 1 of 2

One of the best books on history (sunni version) urdu translation , to start with

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RAMPAGE

Azlan Haider said:


> Umayyad caliphate was One of the most "anti-shia" regimes in history . In fact Shiism in history only gained ground as a form of moral resistance to the Ummayads and their demands ..
> 
> Except for Umer bin Abdulaziz , who is said to have given the controversial Bagh e Fadak back to the family of prophet and* he was the one who put an end to the evil practice of cursing Ali r.a and his progeny from the pulpits of the mosques around the kingdom in Jumma prayers ...*
> 
> Saying that Umayyads were Shia is like saying that Ayatullah Khomeini was a Wahabi
> 
> Hope that answers your question


Yes indeed and instead he added this ayah in the sermon :

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِٱلْعَدْلِ وَٱلْإِحْسَٰنِ وَإِيتَآئِ ذِى ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ وَيَنْهَىٰ عَنِ ٱلْفَحْشَآءِ وَٱلْمُنكَرِ وَٱلْبَغْىِ ۚ يَعِظُكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Azlan Haider said:


> The answer seems to be very simple , They believe in different collections of Ahadith (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh) , often highly contradicting, and they follow different versions of the `same` Islamic History ...



I have always thought that the human fallacy , biases/perception differences , political reasons , cultural practices , errors in reporting and the time would have all played their role , because the current set of Hadiths are largely tried to be rationalized with alternate explanations or even going against the principal text at times , abrogating / cancelling / modifying / taking precedence / super imposing over the verses of Quran at instances because of their contradictory nature , discrepancies , visible historical and scientific mistakes , lack of rationality and common sense and Arabic culture tilt reasons . 

@Armstrong If I tell you something , then you tell it to another five people , do you think it would remain the same ( in effect ) by the time it reaches other people through the five you told about it ? Neglecting the time and memory thing here .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

Secur said:


> @Armstrong If I tell you something , then you tell it to another five people , do you think it would remain the same ( in effect ) by the time it reaches other people through the five you told about it ? Neglecting the time and memory thing here .



Thats one of the reasons why I don't give canonical significance to the Hadhith !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Secur

Armstrong said:


> Thats one of the reasons why I don't give canonical significance to the Hadhith !



The million dollar question is how could the God of Muhammad let his followers astray with such stuff if there's no religion after Islam because nearly all the Muslim world does that ? Is there an answer ? 

P.S You never replied me on the other thread .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Secur said:


> The million dollar question is how could the God of Muhammad let his followers astray with such stuff if there's no religion after Islam because nearly all the Muslim world does that ? Is there an answer ?



When did God led the Muslims astray - It ain't his fault if hes saying repeatedly that 'the Book' is enough for you & even an admonishment of the hadith within the Koran that Muslims continued to believe this ! 

My understanding is that the Muslim World needed to go through the period we are going through & have been going through for quite some time now to revitalized Islamic thought once more by questioning the official narrative & these periods of magnificence & intellectual degradation would be on & off business till the end of times ! 



Secur said:


> P.S You never replied me on the other thread .



Of course I didn't reply to it because I dunno what to say !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Secur

Armstrong said:


> When did God led the Muslims astray - It ain't his fault if hes saying repeatedly that 'the Book' is enough for you & even an admonishment of the hadith within the Koran that Muslims continued to believe this !



My dear friend , I never used the word " led " which would implicate that God deliberately wanted that , I said how he let his followers astray to the state where today almost entire Muslim world gives unprecedented importance to saying(s) collected hundreds of years after the death of Prophet , even over the principal text itself . I know the prohibition of even writing the words and practices of the Muhammad in the same Hadith . But even that has been superseded by some others to continue the show for political benefits .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

Secur said:


> My dear friend , I never used the word " led " which would implicate that God deliberately wanted that , I said how he let his followers astray to the state where today almost entire Muslim world gives unprecedented importance to saying(s) collected hundreds of years after the death of Prophet , even over the principal text itself . I know the prohibition of even writing the words and practices of the Muhammad in the same Hadith . But even that has been superseded by some others to continue the show for political benefits .



I would imagine its 'free-will' !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Panther 57

danish falcon said:


> @Azlan Haider now i have one question for you..
> were ummayads shia or sunni? if they were shia then how ibn hasham al-zuhri wrote the 1700 sunni ahadith on the direct orders of the abdul malik.?
> 
> except khalifa, Umer-e-sani " Umer bin Abdul Aziz " all the ummayyad reigns are controversial .


ummayads were not shias definitely.
@Azlan Haider @Secur @Armstrong @RAMPAGE

After going through this whole thread, which is very interesting and right to quite an extent. I observed that people are keen to do simple researches. This is one thread where I did not see much of conflicts, altercations and hot talks. Let me recommend two movies these have been made by Iran, but are not religious movies. These movies depict political scenarios and developments of those times. A must watch
1. Imam Ali
2. Mukhtarnama

Both these movies are available on DVDs and are also available in smaller episodes on the net.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pinnacle

Panther 57 said:


> ummayads were not shias definitely.
> @Azlan Haider @Secur @Armstrong @RAMPAGE
> 
> After going through this whole thread, which is very interesting and right to quite an extent. I observed that people are keen to do simple researches. This is one thread where I did not see much of conflicts, altercations and hot talks. Let me recommend two movies these have been made by Iran, but are not religious movies. These movies depict political scenarios and developments of those times. A must watch
> 1. Imam Ali
> 2. Mukhtarnama
> 
> Both these movies are available on DVDs and are also available in smaller episodes on the net.


yeah you are right .... it is very good thread if it is not derailed.. thanks by the way for movies i will surely watch it ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Panther 57 said:


> After going through this whole thread, which is very interesting and right to quite an extent. I observed that people are keen to do simple researches. This is one thread where I did not see much of conflicts, altercations and hot talks.



That is because , mate , there aren't really any shortcuts here like the majority of the topics out there . You cant just come here and expect to get away with the usual jingoism and emotional talk .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Resurrection5782

The words شهيد شاهد شهدا which means MARTYR exist in QURAN totally 72 times , Martyrs in Karbala with Imam Hossein(pbuh) were 72 persons.
Ya Hossein(pbuh)...

اللهم عجل لويك الفرج...
اللهم اللعن اول ظالم ظلم حق محمد و آل محمد»؛ «إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَ رَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيا وَ الْآخِرَةِ»

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

@Alpha1 @jaibi @danish falcon @Jazzbot @Armstrong @Secur @RAMPAGE @Panther 57 @FaujHistorian @Pakistani Exile



Tracing the Roots of Religious Extremism by Dr. Mubarak Ali

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Pinnacle

Azlan Haider said:


> @Alpha1 @jaibi @danish falcon @Jazzbot @Armstrong @Secur @RAMPAGE @Panther 57 @FaujHistorian @Pakistani Exile
> 
> 
> 
> Tracing the Roots of Religious Extremism by Dr. Mubarak Ali


Excellent.. Really Nice Sharing @Azlan Haider

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Cool i got my stuff to read for the next two weeks 


Cheers @Azlan Haider

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jazzbot

Very good effort @Azlan Haider. I couldn't follow along because of very busy schedule these days, will try to read the remaining stuff this weekend. It cleared a lot of questions I had in my mind. Keep it coming..

Oh yes, I have a questions for you. Will send you either via PM or will post them here. Let me do some google on my own first.. 



Panther 57 said:


> ummayads were not shias definitely.
> @Azlan Haider @Secur @Armstrong @RAMPAGE
> 
> After going through this whole thread, which is very interesting and right to quite an extent. I observed that people are keen to do simple researches. This is one thread where I did not see much of conflicts, altercations and hot talks. Let me recommend two movies these have been made by Iran, but are not religious movies. These movies depict political scenarios and developments of those times. A must watch
> 
> 1. Imam Ali
> 2. Mukhtarnama
> 
> Both these movies are available on DVDs and are also available in smaller episodes on the net.




I have seen few scenes of Mukhtarnama, are these movies credible as far as history is concerned or are just based on political scenarios?


Also one TV series on Hazrat Omer (r.a) is a must watch:

Farouk Omar (TV Series 2012– ) - IMDb

All episodes are available on youtube with english subtitles, the best series so far that depicted Islamic History without much conflicts or altercations. Highly recommended if you wanna learn about history and events prior to Islam's arrival, during Prophet (p.b.u.h)'s time till Omer (r.a)'s rule. The good thing is, this series covers lives of a lot of Sahabas (R.A): Bilal, Abi Bakar, Omer, Usman, Ali, Khalid bin Waleed (R.A Ajmaeen) are few of them..

@jaibi @Azlan Haider @danish falcon @Alpha1

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hakan



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuntmaster

Isn't religious discussions banned topic here?


----------



## Kompromat

shuntmaster said:


> Isn't religious discussions banned topic here?



This is anthropology.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## syedali73

@Azlan Haider: You rock my man. Thank you very much indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Multani

Azlan Haider said:


> It has been said that daring as it is to investigate the unknown, even more so it is to question the known. Many of the so-called "known facts" in the history of nascent Islam are little more than pious assumptions or even pious wishes which through persistent repetition by the long chain of the generations of Muslims, have acquired the "patina" if not the status of the "articles of faith".
> An attempt to interpret the history of Islam, especially the history of its first century, is like stepping into a mine field; it's seething with controversy, diatribes and polemics, and one may approach it only extremely gingerly. Nevertheless, interpretation remains basic to the understanding of history. Without interpretation, history becomes a mass of uncoordinated information and a catalogue of "dead" events and dates unrelated to each other. Yet these "dead" events bounce back to life when effects are related to causes, and a concatenation of facts is established. A fact in correlation with other facts has historical significance; in isolation it may be meaningless. ...
> 
> 
> *The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the controversial events of the early Islamic era , but to discuss the methodologies and techniques used by the early historians and a critical examination of them ...*
> 
> Before discussing the Early Muslim Historians , I would like you guys ,@jaibi @Jazzbot @Alpha1 @danish falcon @FaujHistorian @Pakistanisage @Zarvan @Talon and others , to discuss archaeological evidences from the first century of Hijra (7th century)
> To start with ;
> *Archaeological Record Of Early Days of Islam : *





Azlan Haider said:


> Now as we have almost no inscriptions / original writings that can be dated back to the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or the rightly guided caliphs (Khulfa e Rashideen) , All the knowledge of that time and those persons have reached us through 3 different sources(textual) , compiled in later times ;
> 
> *1) The Holy Quran* (word of Allah)
> *2) The Ahadith* (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh)
> *3) The History Texts* (crystallization of popular beliefs)
> 
> This led the skeptical scholars like Crone, Wansbrough, and Nevo to argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150–300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events hence unreliable . They also point out that the earliest account of Muhammad's life by Ibn Ishaq was written about a century after Muhammad died and all later narratives by Islamic biographers contain far more details and embellishments about events which are entirely lacking in Ibn Ishaq's text . Also the hadith books were written at least two centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) .
> These objections from such scholars are somewhat genuine but the conclusions drawn by them are easily refutable . To understand this in detail , one must try to find answers to following questions first :
> 
> *1) *_When was the Holy Quran compiled (into a Book form) ? Has the "Original Text" reached us ?_
> *2)*_ When and Why were the Hadith Books written ? _
> *3)*_ Who wrote the Islamic History and for whom ?_


 
It is incorrect to say the hadith books were written at least 2 centuries after the Passing away of our Habeeb salalaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam.

I have met Patricia Crone face to face. She is woman who has great hate for Islam. Immense hate. I was attending a lecture by her on Muqanna, a figure in Islamic history, who caused an uproar by claiming to be a Prophet.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Multani said:


> It is incorrect to say the hadith books were written at least 2 centuries after the Passing away of our Habeeb salalaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam.



You should do some research on it first . 

Islamic History & Archaeology


----------



## Multani

s


Azlan Haider said:


> @
> 
> The answer seems to be very simple , They believe in different collections of [B]Ahadith[/B][U] (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh)[/U] , often highly contradicting, and they follow different versions of the `same` Islamic History ...




This answer is not correct. Muslim sects exist because of different interpretations of the Qur'an al kareem itself. Ahadith and Islamic history are used for further corroboration.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Multani said:


> s
> 
> This answer is not correct. Muslim sects exist because of different interpretations of the Qur'an al kareem itself. Ahadith and Islamic history are used for further corroboration.



And why do they have different interpretations of *same *Quranic verses ??? It is because they have different Traditions/Ahadith that tend to explain specific verses , their "shaan e nazool" , `real` meanings etc.(verse of purification for example) ... And every sect believes that only their collection of Ahadith is authentic and every one else is "misguided" !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Multani

Azlan Haider said:


> @Aeronaut
> 
> But things might not be that simple , The first Islamic civil war (656-661 CE) , also known as the First Fitna , was fought among the Muslims who did not follow different Ahadith or versions of history , They were mostly companions and relatives of the prophet (pbuh) who had learnt Islam directly from the Messenger of Allah !! They did not challenge each other`s faith , They contested for the leadership of the newly born Ummah .. The divide in the Muslims was purely "political" in the beginning , which became "religious" with the passage of time .


 
The above paragraph is misleading for Muslims. It is overly simplistic, and is based on a common orientalist assumption. Remind of TJ Winters. This is a caution for the unsuspecting reader. Firstly, the guy says that a civil war happened. Fine. Then he says that the war happened for political reasons.

In the world of Islamic learning and bodies of knowledge, no one really cares about political wars. Everything is interpreted based on Islamic rulings. Contesting for leadership is interpreted on the basis of ijtihad.

For example, Sayyiduna Mu'awiya radiallahu anhu was a mujtahid.




Azlan Haider said:


> @
> Ali (r.a) was a cousin and son in law of Muhammad (pbuh) , who fought against Aisha (r.a) [ the beloved wife of prophet (pbuh)] and Zubair bin Awwam (r.a)[also a cousin of prophet as well as Ali himself] in 656 AD , in the "battle of camel" .. Later Ali r.a had to fight Muaviyyah in "battle of siffeen" , Muaviyyah was brother in law of Muhammad (pbuh) and a distant cousin .. So the participants of the First Fitna were all related to each other , and no one tried to prove his superiority over the other claiming a kinship to Muhammad (pbuh) and "religion" stayed out of politics ..




Sayyiduna Maula Ali karamallahu wajhu did not fight against Sayyida Aisha nor did he ever fight for politics. And neither did she fight against him. They did not fight each other.

What happened on the ground cannot be made into a fight between saints. There was ijtihad. Not against each other for political ascension.

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
But in the Second Islamic Civil war (ended 692 AD) , the religion could not stay out of politics . Following the Murder of Imam Hussain and almost all the male members of family of prophet (pbuh) in "battle of kerbala" by the Ummayad troops of Yazid (son of Muaviyyah) in 680 AD(The battle is often cited as the definitive break between the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam) , Yazid faced a second revolt from Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who was the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and the son of Asma bint Abu Bakr. Ibn al-Zubayr's rebellion was seen by many as an attempt to return to the pristine values of the early Islamic community, and his revolt was welcomed by a number of parties that were unhappy with the Umayyad rule for various reasons.
[/quote]

This is a story made up by Azlan unfortunately. Quite a set of assertions and interpretations of Islamic history in such simplistic terms. :lol:

Religion could not stay out of politics? When did Maula Ali karamallahu wajhu ever separate religion out of his actions? This is a total give away

Sayyiduna AbdAllah bin Zubayr fought for the SAME reasons as Imam Husayn alaihisalam and Maula Ali karamallahu wajhu. They all fought for religion.

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
This was the first time that the name of "Muhammad" was used for political purposes . As is evident from archaeological record , The name of Muhammad was not minted on coins or other inscriptions before Abdullah Bin Zubair gained control of Hijaz . The oldest coins with shahada of prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) are from his time . His opponent and the Ummayad leader Abdul Malik , followed him and started using the name of prophet on coins and other inscriptions (a practice his predecessors never approved of) .[U][B] He went on to build a alternative ka`ba in jerusalem as the Ummayads had lost control of Makkah ; The famous Dome Of The Rock , and this was the time when he ordered compiling of Ahadith for political purposes , something forbidden by the messenger of Allah and the Khulfa e Rashideen , .... [/B][/U]
[/quote]

The blessed name of our Prophet salallaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam was on the banners, on signatures of all Sahaba. If later on it progressed to being minted on money or "other inscriptions", does in no way support the proposition that the name of our Habeeb salallaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam was not used before.

Against Musaylima Kadhaab, the Sahaba raised "Wa Muhammadaaa! "

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]


Some of the greatest Sunni scholars of all times did not consider Al Zuhri to be trustworthy

Then why blame Al Yaqubi alone ???
[/quote]

If someone is a Shia Pakistani, there is no harm in being honest and straight forward.


[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
Ibn e Saad is definitely a Sunni !! This confession by Al Zuhri himself is enough as a evidence when considered alongwith other similar reports
[/quote]

Lots of who is a Sunni, and who is a Shia. Lots of copy pastes from certain websites.

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
[B][SIZE=5]Ibne Shihab al-Zuhri was the first historian who wrote the history of Islam under the direct order and fund of Abdul Malik. He also wrote Hadith collection. The works of al-Zuhri was one of the main source for al-Bukhari. al-Zuhri was attached to the royal family of Abdul Malik, and was the tutor of his sons.[/SIZE][/B] [COLOR=rgb(0, 179, 179)](al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah," by Shibli part I, pp.13-17)[/COLOR]

Shibli is also a "great" sunni historian

[/quote]

I knew the above was coming.

[quote="Azlan Haider, post: 5123445, member: 150591"]@[USER=26661]
Among the students of al-Zuhri, two persons, namely[B] Musa Ibn Uqbah[/B], and[B] Mohammad Ibn Ishaq [/B]became famous historians. The former was a slave of the house of Zubair. Although his history is not available today, it had been the most popular work on history for a long time. You will find its references in many history books on different subjects.

[B]The second student, [COLOR=rgb(255, 0, 0)]Mohammad Ibn Ishaq[/COLOR] is the most famous historian . His biography of the Prophet, called "Sirah Rasul Allah", is still the accredited authority on the subject in the shape that was given to it by Ibn Hisham, and is known as "al-Sirah of Ibn Hisham[/B]".


[B][SIZE=5][COLOR=rgb(0, 102, 102)]So Islamic Hadith and History books were first compiled under the direct order of Umayyah Kings for political purposes [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B].............
[/quote]

Islamic Scholars accept Ahadith based on them being the words of our Prophet salallaho alaihi wa alihi wa salam. The Ahle Bayt Kiramayn are our sources.

Imam Ja'far al Sadiq's progeny established themselves in different regions of the Islamic world. And they took the science of Hadith, and the Ahadith of our Prophet salAllaho alaihi wa alihi waslam with them. And they were directly linked to the 'ulama who collected the Ahadith.

This thread is not on anthropology. It is on religion. It is an attack on Ahadith.[/user][/user][/user][/user][/user][/user]



Azlan Haider said:


> And why do they have different interpretations of *same *Quranic verses ??? It is because they have different Traditions/Ahadith that tend to explain specific verses , their "shaan e nazool" , `real` meanings etc.(verse of purification for example) ... And every sect believes that only their collection of Ahadith is authentic and every one else is "misguided" !!


 
I will summarize what this guy is saying in this thread:

1) Qur'an al Majeed is inherently non-disputable
2) Disputes arise due to Ahadith
3) Ahadith were collected under duress from politicians
4) They caused dogmatic wars in latter days

@Aeronaut @jaibi@Jazzbot @Talon@danish falcon @Armstrong


----------



## M. Sarmad

@Multani

Don`t spoil this thread when you have nothing of any academic significance to contribute , Open a new thread for your stupid rants

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Multani

Azlan Haider said:


> @Multani
> 
> Don`t spoil this thread when you have nothing of any academic significance to share , Open a new thread for your stupid rants


 
I have clearly pointed out the false assumptions on which this thread is based.


----------



## syedali73

Azlan Haider said:


> @Multani
> 
> Don`t spoil this thread when you have nothing of any academic significance to share , Open a new thread for your stupid rants
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is the truth


Unfortunately you cant stop anyone from posting, however irrelevant or stupid it may be. Please ignore such posters and move on. To contribute something of academic relevance/merit, one has to have some academic credentials, which i dont find many to posess. When someone opens up a sentence or paragraph with "lol", you know where he is heading towards. Moawiah was mujtahid... just like Munawwar Hassan, Fazal ur Rahman, Sami ul Haque, Abdul Aziz, and Fazal ul Allah are mujtahid. Continuing any further with some one like this is utter waste of time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Multani

syedali73 said:


> Unfortunately you cant stop anyone from posting, however irrelevant or stupid it may be. Please ignore such posters and move on. To contribute something of academic relevance/merit, one has to have some academic credentials, which i dont find many to posess. When someone opens up a sentence or paragraph with "lol", you know where he is heading towards.


 
This thread is based on these 4 ideas.

1) Qur'an al Kareem is inherently non-disputable, if Muslims care to realize
2) Ahadith have caused the disputes
3) Ahadith were collected under duress by politicians
4) They assumed sectarian dogma later on, which is the cause of wars within Muslim groups

That is all.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Multani said:


> I have clearly pointed out the false assumptions on which this thread is based.



"assumptions" ??? 
So you deny all the given historical references just because "you" _don`t like_ them !! This discussion is surely far too mature for you to participate in , so spare us your nonsense please

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## syedali73

Multani said:


> This thread is based on these 4 ideas.
> 
> 1) Qur'an al Kareem is inherently non-disputable, if Muslims care to realize
> 2) Ahadith have caused the disputes
> 3) Ahadith were collected under duress by politicians
> 4) They assumed sectarian dogma later on, which is the cause of wars within Muslim groups
> 
> That is all.


And all are correct and both historically, and logically proven.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Multani

syedali73 said:


> And all are correct and both historically, and logically proven.


 
I have pointed out the illogical assertions made by Azlan. What you are saying means, all Islamic Institutions, whether Sunni, Shia, or Wahabi are false. Is this what you are asserting?

That is a big thing.

@Azlan Haider


----------



## M. Sarmad

Multani said:


> That means, all Islamic Institutions, whether Sunni, Shia, or Wahabi are false. Is this what you are asserting?
> 
> That is a big thing.
> 
> @Azlan Haider



Was Muhammad (pbuh) a Sunni , a Shia , or a Wahhabi ?? And if he was not any of them , then ofcourse they are all wrong !! ! We should be "Muslims" just like our Nabi kareem SAW , who was a "Muslim" only and nothing more

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## syedali73

Multani said:


> That means, all Islamic Institutions, whether Sunni, Shia, or Wahabi are false. Is this what you are asserting?
> 
> That is a big thing.
> 
> @Azlan Haider


My understanding of Islam is very simple, based on what is given in Quran plus my logic. It is not difficult to understand Quran, and there is absolutely no need of 'keys' such as books of hadith. Allah has given me a brain and asked me repeatidly in Quran to contemplate.

أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ أَمْ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبٍ أَقْفَالُهَا

Will they not then ponder the Qur'an or are there locks upon their hearts? Surah Al-Muhammad, 47:24.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Multani

Azlan Haider said:


> "assumptions" ???
> So you deny all the given historical references just because "you" _don`t like_ them !! This discussion is surely far too mature for you to participate in , so spare us your nonsense please


 
Which "all"? There is a VAST amount of historical references in Islamic literary works, that i can list here. It is not about what i like. I am nothing, and only a student. I didn't come to spoil your thread, or rant.

What you assert can be easily refuted in any Islamic study circle, shia, sunni, or wahabi,


----------



## Indos

syedali73 said:


> And all are correct and both historically, and logically proven.



Some Al-Quran verses are indeed disputable, particularly in determining which verses should be understood literally and which ones should be understood non-literally. Salafi type of person usually don't have clear understanding about non-literal understanding. 

Talking about Hadist, some Hadist can also be best understood by using non-literal meaning. Particularly in term of Tauhid teaching, heaven and hell definition. Tasawuf knowledge has used many non-literal interpretation toward Quran and Hadist. Actually for someone understand psychology, they will understand Tasawuf much better and clearly understand which one that should be interpreted as literal and which one should be interpeted as non-literal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Multani said:


> Which "all"? There is a VAST amount of historical references in Islamic literary works, that i can list here. It is not about what i like. I am nothing, and only a student. I didn't come to spoil your thread, or rant.
> 
> What you assert can be easily refuted in any Islamic study circle, shia, sunni, or wahabi,



Then delete your stupid reply , and try to refute my post "academically" .. I will be waiting ... And please no copy paste


----------



## Multani

syedali73 said:


> My understanding of Islam is very simple, based on what is given in Quran plus my logic. It is not difficult to understand Quran, and there is absolutely no need of 'keys' such as books of hadith. Allah has given me a brain and asked me repeatidly in Quran to think.


 
If that is true, why did you say "laeen" to yazeed? It's because you do take it to the sectarian level. You could have been objective in the case of yazeed. Giving him the title of "laeen" serves no purpose except personal hate.



Azlan Haider said:


> Then delete your stupid post , and refute my post "academically" .. I will be waiting ... And please no copy paste


 
I cannot delete that post, because in it is ample evidence against the false assertions based on which you have started this topic.



Indos said:


> Some Al-Quran verses are indeed disputable, particularly in determining which verses should be understood literally and which ones should be understood non-literally. Salafi type of person usually don't have clear understanding about non-literal understanding.
> 
> Talking about Hadist, some Hadist can also be best understood by using non-literal meaning. Particularly in term of Tauhid teaching, heaven and hell definition. Tasawuf knowledge has used many non-literal interpretation toward Quran and Hadist. Actually for someone understand psychology, they will understand Tasawuf much better and clearly understand which one that should be interpreted as literal and which one should be interpeted as non-literal.


 
Thank you. This post is a very good answer to this thread.

@Azlan Haider @syedali73@Jazzbot @jaibi @Armstrong @danish falcon @Aeronaut


----------



## M. Sarmad

Multani said:


> I cannot delete that post, because in it is *ample evidence* against the false assertions based on which you have started this topic.



Okay , if that is what you call "ample evidence" , I am not wasting time on you anymore . You are free to believe in whatever you want ..


----------



## syedali73

Multani said:


> If that is true, why did you say "laeen" to yazeed? It's because you do take it to the sectarian level. You could have been objective in the case of yazeed. Giving him the title of "laeen" serves no purpose except personal hate.


I told you before, am telling you again, i am not shia. I call Yazid "laeen", because he is "laeen", like all other Kings of Ummayadh dynasty minus Umar bin Abdul Aziz. I am very objective in his case. A thief must be called a thief, and nothing else. Yazid is called who he was. I am not among those jahil ahl e sunnat who use 'RA' suffix after his name. There is blood of 72 ahl il bait on his hand. You can ignore it, but i cant. Yes I hate him, for what he did to ahl il bait, every Muslim should hate him.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indos said:


> Some Al-Quran verses are indeed disputable, particularly in determining which verses should be understood literally and which ones should be understood non-literally. Salafi type of person usually don't have clear understanding about non-literal understanding.
> 
> Talking about Hadist, some Hadist can also be best understood by using non-literal meaning. Particularly in term of Tauhid teaching, heaven and hell definition. Tasawuf knowledge has used many non-literal interpretation toward Quran and Hadist. Actually for someone understand psychology, they will understand Tasawuf much better and clearly understand which one that should be interpreted as literal and which one should be interpeted as non-literal.



There is a problem here sir . You say that there are disputable verses in Quran. Quran says repeatedly that Quran is free of errors , easy to understand and that we don`t need anything besides Quran (to understand it) . So who should we follow ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indos

Azlan Haider said:


> There is a problem here sir . You say that there are disputable verses in Quran. Quran says repeatedly that Quran is free of errors , easy to understand and that we don`t need anything besides Quran (to understand it) . So who should we follow ?



Actually Allah said that there are two types of Quran verses, first is the easy understanding and the second is the non-easy understanding. Muhkamat and Mutasyabihat, I think you know that term, friend.

For instant, if ALLAH said in Quran that in heaven we will be put in a high place...the salafi type of person will see it just like really living in a short of higher ground like that, but in term of Tasawuf understanding (soul/psychology) it should be interpreted in a psychological way, like taking a superior mentality ( I think we all know the term of "inferiority complex of Adler"). This is only very short explanation. 

The problem is in the Ulama side, the one that has authority to explain Quran and Hadist to common people. Many Ulama is not really Ulama based on Quran definition, and political ruler in the past and today can define which one can be considered as ulama and which one is not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## syedali73

Where did Allah say that there are two types of verses? Please quote the ayah.

In fact, Allah says:

وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ

Hence, indeed, We made this Qur’an easy to bear in mind: who, then, is willing to take it to heart? Surah al-Qamar 54:17.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indos said:


> Actually Allah said that there are two types of Quran verses, first is the easy understanding and the second is the non-easy understanding. Muhkamat and Mutasyabihat, I think you know that term, friend.
> 
> For instant, if ALLAH said in Quran that in heaven we will be put in a high place...the salafi type of person will see it just like really living in a short of higher ground like that, but in term of Tasawuf understanding (soul/psychology) it should be interpreted in a psychological way, like taking a superior mentality ( I think we all know the term of "inferiority complex of Adler"). This is only very short explanation.
> 
> The problem is in the Ulama side, the one that has authority to explain Quran and Hadist to common people. Many Ulama is not really Ulama based on Quran definition, and political ruler in the past and today can define which one can be considered as ulama and which one is not.




_He it is Who has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses fundamental; they are the foundation of the book: others are Mutashabihat. *But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the Mutashabihat seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows their true reality except Allah.* And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:’ and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding._ [3:7]

Brother don`t you think that trying to find out the meaning of Mutashabihat (unclear verses) using Hadith and other conjecture is actually rejecting a direct order of Allah almighty ??? No one but Allah knows their hidden meaning , so why seek discord ??

And that is exactly what I am trying to say here , People seek discord , (by following different sets of Ahadith) ignoring Allah`s order and thus all the blood shed and sectarianism in ummah

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indos

Azlan Haider said:


> _He it is Who has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses fundamental; they are the foundation of the book: others are Mutashabihat. *But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the Mutashabihat seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows their true reality except Allah.* And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:’ and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding._ [3:7]
> 
> Brother don`t you think that trying to find out the meaning of Mutashabihat (unclear verses) using Hadith and other conjecture is actually rejecting a direct order of Allah almighty ??? No one but Allah knows their meaning , so why seek discord ??
> 
> And that is exactly what I am trying to say here , People seek discord , (by following different sets of Ahadith) ignoring Allah`s order and thus all the blood shed and sectarianism in ummah



Yup, except ALLAH, it means we as Muslim should not become enemy to one another because of different interpretation. In the past, this thing is happening (Muktazilah vs Non Muktazilah).

In my understanding, some verses can only be understood by some one who has experienced it in a soul level and this thing cannot be taken by just lecturing or words, so only ALLAH can give it, not any men. Thats why Hasan Basri said about "secret (knowledge)" in Islam. 

I think the dispute that we have in recent time is all taken by literal understanding people, look like Khawarij, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc. This is not a fault of Islam, but some people are just heart stone type, it is the curse for them.

Shiah vs Sunni war in Syria and Iraq is actually a political war between leaders. And we can avoid that war by teaching non-literal meaning of Islam (Tasawuf) and understanding psychology. Like we should be able to see the reason behind our desire. I bet many literal understanding people I have seen is still in an area of superiority complex or inferiority complex live, havent yet passed that level yet, thats why this type of people are so easy to get mad if they get critised or ignored. Religion somewhat is still being used by them to pleasure their egos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indos said:


> it means we as Muslim should not become enemy to one another because of different interpretation. In the past, this thing is happening (Muktazilah vs Non Muktazilah).



Yes bro , that is exactly what I am saying . Muslims got divided into sects because of different interpretations of Quranic verses based on contradicting Ahadith . It happened in past , it is happening today !!! And I personally believe that a "Faqir" is hundred times better than a "Mullah"


----------



## syedali73

Azlan Haider said:


> _He it is Who has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses fundamental; they are the foundation of the book: others are Mutashabihat. *But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the Mutashabihat seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows their true reality except Allah.* And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:’ and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding._ [3:7]


Azlan, allow me to clear up the meaning of "Mutashabihat". It does not exactly mean 'unclear' but "symbolic". So Allah is saying that some verses are _mohkamat_, which means obvious, or to-the-point, or specific, or precise, while others are allegorical, or symbolic, or representative (perhaps best describes Arabic ' Mutashabihat'). 

For example:

وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ ۖ كُلَّمَا رُزِقُوا مِنْهَا مِن ثَمَرَةٍ رِّزْقًا ۙ قَالُوا هَٰذَا الَّذِي رُزِقْنَا مِن قَبْلُ ۖ وَأُتُوا بِهِ *مُتَشَابِهًا* ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِيهَا أَزْوَاجٌ مُّطَهَّرَةٌ ۖ وَهُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ

And announce good news (to) those who believe and did/made the correct/righteous deeds, that to them (are) treed gardens the rivers flow from beneath it. Whenever they (were) provided for from it from a fruit a provision ,they said: "This (is) what we were provided for from before." *And they were given with it similar*, and for them in it (are) purified spouses and they are in it immortally/eternally. Surah al Baqrah 2:25.

See, how Allah has used the word "Mutashabiha" in this ayah? It is because for us humans, it is not possible to comprehend extra-terrestrial or heavenly things. To understand them, Allah gives us examples from things we find around ourselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

syedali73 said:


> Azlan, allow me to clear up the meaning of "Mutashabihat". It does not exactly mean 'unclear' but "symbolic". So Allah is saying that some verses are _mohkamat_, which means obvious, or to-the-point, or specific, or precise, while others are allegorical, or symbolic, or representative (perhaps best describes Arabic ' Mutashabihat').
> 
> For example:
> 
> وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ ۖ كُلَّمَا رُزِقُوا مِنْهَا مِن ثَمَرَةٍ رِّزْقًا ۙ قَالُوا هَٰذَا الَّذِي رُزِقْنَا مِن قَبْلُ ۖ وَأُتُوا بِهِ *مُتَشَابِهًا* ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِيهَا أَزْوَاجٌ مُّطَهَّرَةٌ ۖ وَهُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ
> 
> And announce good news (to) those who believe and did/made the correct/righteous deeds, that to them (are) treed gardens the rivers flow from beneath it. Whenever they (were) provided for from it from a fruit a provision ,they said: "This (is) what we were provided for from before." *And they were given with it similar*, and for them in it (are) purified spouses and they are in it immortally/eternally. Surah al Baqrah 2:25.
> 
> See, how Allah has used the word "Mutashabiha" in this ayah? It is because for us humans, it is not possible to comprehend extra-terrestrial or heavenly things. To understand them, Allah gives us examples from things we find around ourselves.



Brother I respect your POV . This topic is debatable . Allegorical or symbolic verses are "unclear" and there are certain verses in Quran whose "hidden meaning" is known by almighty alone (or may be Masoomeen and Auliya too) . And surely it is not a contradiction in Quran (as some Islamophobes try to claim). But the orders are clear . Anyways this is a purely theological debate which has got nothing to do with this thread , It is about history and archaeology . I don`t want it to get locked

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indos

Azlan Haider said:


> Yes bro , that is exactly what I am saying . Muslims got divided into sects because of different interpretations of Quranic verses based on contradicting Ahadith . It happened in past , it is happening today !!! And I personally believe that a "Faqir" is hundred times better than a "Mullah"



I believe that there are also contradicting Quran verses (without Hadist explanation) as well as Hadist, but if we know the context, it is not contradicting anymore. Sometimes irrelevant hadist is used to interpret Quran verses, and it is somewhat happening because of lack of knowledge/analytical skills /egos.

And I believe that the different in stressing also make the wrong interpretation as well. In my opinion Wahhabi plays too many stressing on hadist than on Quran, and they are too literal understanding people. I believe Today Salafi is quite different of the really teaching of Ibnu Tayyimah and Ibnu Qaim (more Tasawuf understanding). Maybe Hadist Ulama is more about remembering quality, not really analytical people, thus making Islam knowledge get reduced as prophet Muhammad is actually a philosopher and very analytical.

And knowledge and analytical quality is also different between Muslims. So conformity in Islamic understanding is not realistic brother...
Higher in knowledge will get higher understanding as well. Dont blame Hadist, but people.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indos said:


> I believe that there are also contradicting Quran verses (not only Hadist), but if we know the context, it is not contradicting anymore. And I believe that the different in stressing also make the wrong interpretation as well. In my opinion Wahhabi plays too many stressing on hadist than on Quran, and they are too literal understanding people. I believe Today Salafi is quite different of the really teaching of Ibnu Tayyimah and Ibnu Qaim (more Tasawuf understanding). Maybe Hadist Ulama is more about remembering quality, not really analytical people, thus making Islam knowledge get reduced as prophet Muhammad is actually a philosopher and very analytical.
> 
> And knowledge and analytical quality is also different between Muslims. So conformity in Islamic understanding is not realistic brother...
> Higher in knowledge will get higher understanding as well.



The purpose of this thread was to critically examine the methodologies used by early Islamic historiographers and the prevailing circumstances under which History/Hadith was compiled originally . A closer examination of historical and archaeological evidence reveals that the authenticity of all Hadith and History is highly doubtful .


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> The purpose of this thread was to critically examine the methodologies used by early Islamic historiographers and the prevailing circumstances under which History/Hadith was compiled originally . A closer examination of historical and archaeological evidence reveals that the authenticity of Hadith and History is highly doubtful .



You may want to look into the history of how the Quran itself was compiled into its final form, including the earliest manuscripts from Sana'a.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> including the earliest manuscripts from Sana'a.



The san`a manuscript was a "badly written" copy .


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> The san`a manuscript was a "badly written" copy .



What does "badly written" mean as you describe in this case?


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> What does "badly written" mean as you describe in this case?



San'a Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet . It had minor spelling mistakes .


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> San'a Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet . It had minor spelling mistakes .



There are major differences between that text and what exists now, and those differences and their chronology cannot be explained so easily.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> *There are major differences between that text and what exists now*, and those differences and their chronology cannot be explained so easily.



Bring your proof , and if you are referring to allegations made by Puin and Graf von Bothmer ,then you should know that they have been satisfactorily answered by the scholars already


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> Bring your proof , and if you are referring to allegations made by Puin and Graf von Bothmer ,then you should know that they have been satisfactorily answered by scholars already



Rather than risk the closure of this thread, suffice to say that the point to be taken is that it is possible to create doubt in the authenticity of just about any historical manuscript, including the Quran, and also the hadith. It all depends on the analysis.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> Rather than risk the closure of this thread, suffice to say that the point to be taken is that it is possible to create doubt in the authenticity of just about any historical manuscript, including the Quran, and also the hadith. It all depends on the analysis.



No my friend , you seem to have no idea about the difference in compilation of Hadith and Quran . Hadith was compiled two centuries after the death of prophet by common people . A few thousand (out of hundreds of thousands often highly contradicting ahadith) were considered noteworthy , based upon personal opinions , bias and politics . On the other hand , there has never been such a dispute about Quranic verses . The only difference was in its arrangement (Tarteeb) and that was settled during the early days of Islam . The oldest existing Quranic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock (which date from 70 AH) do not contradict with present day Quran . There has been a debate about certain "words" , but still it does not change the meaning of a whole verse/verses


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> No my friend , you seem to have no idea about the difference in compilation of Hadith and Quran . Hadith was compiled two centuries after the death of prophet by common people . A few thousand (out of hundreds of thousands often highly contradicting ahadith) were considered noteworthy , based upon personal opinions , bias and politics . On the other hand , there has never been such a dispute about Quranic verses . The only difference was in its arrangement (Tarteeb) and that was settled during the early days of Islam . The oldest existing Quranic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock (which date from 70 AH) do not contradict with present day Quran . There has been a debate about certain "words" , but still it does not change the meaning of a whole verse/verses



70 years before compilation or 200, or any other similar number, the basic principle of a delay causing doubts about authenticity would apply to both scenarios.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> 70 years before compilation or 200, or any other similar number, the basic principle of a delay causing doubts about authenticity would apply to both scenarios.



Delay is not the only factor causing doubt . You surely haven`t read the previous posts . Quran was written down during the life of Muhammad (pbuh) and this was the reason that there was never a dispute about Quranic verses . There are a lot of Quranic manuscripts which can be safely dated back to first century Hijra . Hadith writing was forbidden by the prophet and the early caliphs . It was Ibn e Shihab who started writing down Ahadith on the orders of Ummayad Kings . And his source was : "what he (supposedly) listened from others , who (allegedly) listened it from others and so on " .. .. No one (even with a little knowledge) will try to compare the two !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> Delay is not the only factor causing doubt . You surely haven`t read the previous posts . Quran was written down during the life of Muhammad (pbuh) and this was the reason that there was never a dispute about Quraniv verses . There are a lot of Quranic manuscripts which can be safely dated back to first century Hijra . Hadith writing was forbidden by the prophet and the early caliphs . It was Ibn e Shihab who started writing down Ahadith on the orders of Ummayad Kings . And his source was : "what he listened from others , who listened it from others and so on " .. .. It is really surprising that you are trying to draw a comparison between Hadith writing and compilation of Quran !!!



I have read the earlier posts, and it is established fact that the earliest manuscripts of the Quran do differ significantly from the final form approved by Usman RA.

What is surprising is that you fail to see the parallels between your objections to the compilation of the ahadith and that of the Quran. Authenticity in case of such old and revered texts is more a matter of faith and therefore equally deserving of respect.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> I have read the earlier posts,* and it is established fact that the earliest manuscripts of the Quran do differ significantly from the final form approved by Usman RA*.
> 
> What is surprising is that you fail to see the parallels between your objections to the compilation of the ahadith and that of the Quran. Authenticity in case of such old and revered texts is more a matter of faith and therefore equally deserving of respect.



Now bring your proof if you are not a liar !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> Now bring your proof if you are not a liar !!!



Sirjee, I respect both as a matter of faith. Tussi nahi mana tey na mano, menu koi farak nahi painda.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> Sirjee, I respect both as a matter of faith. Tussi nahi mana tey na mano, menu koi farak nahi painda.



Na yar , you have made an allegation which can never be proved 
*The various Western views have all been addressed by contemporary Muslim scholars, (*see post #5) , and if you are able to come up with some strong evidence , I will not reject it


----------



## Indos

Azlan Haider said:


> Delay is not the only factor causing doubt . You surely haven`t read the previous posts . Quran was written down during the life of Muhammad (pbuh) and this was the reason that there was never a dispute about Quranic verses . There are a lot of Quranic manuscripts which can be safely dated back to first century Hijra . Hadith writing was forbidden by the prophet and the early caliphs . It was Ibn e Shihab who started writing down Ahadith on the orders of Ummayad Kings . And his source was : "what he (supposedly) listened from others , who (allegedly) listened it from others and so on " .. .. No one (even with a little knowledge) will try to compare the two !!!



I wonder why our prophet forbid someone writing any hadist (yes, I have seen that hadist), there should be some logical explanation behind it.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indos said:


> I wonder why our prophet forbid someone writing any hadist (yes, I have seen that hadist), there should be some logical explanation behind it.....



Because (In words of Umer r,a) : "The book of Allah(Quran) is enough for us (i.e Muslims)"


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> Na yar , you have made an allegation which can never be proved
> *The various Western views have all been addressed by contemporary Muslim scholars, (*see post #5) , and if you are able to come up with some strong evidence , I will not reject it



Sir, it is your belief that the discrepancies in the chronology and the content of the Quran have been explained adequately because it is your faith that the Quran is the unaltered word of Allah. Similarly, it is the equally valid faith of others in the validity of the ahadith that should be respected equally, despite similar lacunae in their compilation.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> Sir, it is your belief that the discrepancies in the chronology and the content of the Quran have been explained adequately because it is your faith that the Quran is the unaltered word of Allah. Similarly, it is the equally valid faith of others in the validity of the ahadith that should be respected equally, despite similar lacunae in their compilation.



I am still waiting .... back up your claim with some evidence . 
No need to repeat same thing over and over again

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> I am still waiting .... back up your claim with some evidence .
> No need to repeat same thing over and over again



Exactly. Let us move on.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> Exactly. Let us move on.



G haan , aur ek naseehat ap k liyay , when you can`t back up your claim with proof/reference , baray baray da`way nahi kernay chahiyay

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> G haan , aur ek naseehat ap k liyay , when you can`t back up your claim with proof/reference , baray baray da`way nahi kernay chahiyay



Sirjee, one should respect religious beliefs of all types. That naseehat is perhaps more important.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> Sirjee, one should respect religious beliefs of all types. That naseehat is perhaps more important.



Bhai Every Muslim Believes that only Quran is perfect . And Quran tells us that we should not accept anything without proper investigation . And we are trying to investigate/establish the authenticity of Hadith . I see no "disrespect" in it ... Except for "Tauheen e *Mullahs*" , who want us to follow them like sheep

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> Bhai Every Muslim Believes that only Quran is perfect . And Quran tells us that we should not accept anything without proper investigation . *And we are trying to investigate/establish the authenticity of Hadith *. I see no "disrespect" in it ...



Sirjee, large numbers of Muslims believe in the "Sahih Ahadith" in the same manner as you believe in the Quran. Who are we to judge the beliefs of others? Just as you are content that all objections to the authenticity in the Quran have been fully satisfied, they believe that they are able to judge the authenticity of the ahadith to their own satisfaction. Thus, for them, they are equally valid.

Judging any belief by logic is simply an exercise in futility.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> Sirjee, large numbers of Muslims believe in the "Sahih Ahadith" in the same manner as you believe in the Quran. Who are we to judge the beliefs of others? Just as you are content that all objections to the authenticity in the Quran have been fully satisfied, they believe that they are able to judge the authenticity of the ahadith to their own satisfaction. Thus, for them, they are equally valid.
> 
> Judging any belief by logic is simply an exercise in futility.



Not Again !!!  . You haven`t got anything to discuss . So ja mera bhai sakoon se


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> Not Again !!!  . You haven`t got anything to discuss . So ja mera bhai sakoon se



As long as you respect others' beliefs just as you respect your own, I have total sakoon.


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> As long as you respect others' beliefs just as you respect your own, I have total sakoon.



Meray bhai I am not disrespecting (or even discussing) some one`s beliefs . I am discussing "history and archaeology" , so chill mar


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> Meray bhai I am not disrespecting (or even discussing) some one`s beliefs . I am discussing "history and archaeology" , so chill mar



Of course. According to the history, many authoritative works about the authenticity of the ahadith are believed to be correct by millions of millions of Muslims. The archaeology of the mosque in Sana'a is equally interesting, right?


----------



## M. Sarmad

VCheng said:


> Of course. According to the history, many authoritative works about the authenticity of the ahadith are believed to be correct by millions of millions of Muslims. The archaeology of the mosque in Sana'a is equally interesting, right?



Because those millions and millions usually don`t bother to read history and trust the "Mullahs" only . About San`a mosque manuscript , bhai bring your evidence (archaeological) , and I am ready to discuss . Aur trolling ka quota pora ho gaya ho , to plz stop spoiling this thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Azlan Haider said:


> Because those millions and millions usually don`t bother to read history and trust the "Mullahs" only .



Hey, as long as they are content with their beliefs, who can question that? They are content and satisfied and happy with the history and the archaeology of their beliefs as much as anyone else.


----------



## Zarvan

Azlan Haider said:


> You should do some research on it first .
> 
> Islamic History & Archaeology


You need to do some research Mr Hadith were written and orally passed on in life of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW on his orders and continued to be done in life of Sahabas and in life of students of Sahabas Mr Hadith were both being written and orally learnt in their life time and Mr even the Quran you read you know this is Quran in fact is told you buy RASOOL SAW again Hadees so basically you not only deny Quran but also Hadees and stop posting lies of Kharjis like pervaiz and others who only bark and shit bloody agents of kufr and enemies of RASOOL SAW @Multani


----------



## Indos

Azlan Haider said:


> Because (In words of Umer r,a) : "The book of Allah(Quran) is enough for us (i.e Muslims)"



This statement was taken during our prophet death, he wanted to write something because he was so worried that we will be in conflict with each other, but Umar prevented it and said that "words". And it made a huge argument among Muslims who was in our prophet room, it made our prophet ask them to leave and never write anything until His death. There is another Hadist said directly from our prophet mouth preventing Muslim to write any hadist, and the hadist is shahih.

I believe that Muslim has to write Quran first, before writing any hadist. Muslim should prioritize the Quran first, it is the way we should thinks. But some Muslim just prioritize Hadist, it is the one that makes some problem since Hadist should be interpreted by someone who has good Quran knowledge and understand the context.

Khawarij, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other fanatics is a group in Muslim who doesn't use context in interpretating Quran and Hadist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

@syedali73 :

Now the Mullahs ( Zarvan ) have started to show their real face . They can never prove the authenticity of so called religious texts , compiled for political gains , centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) and Now they are trying to say that rejecting them is actually rejecting Quran !! So they are ready to question the authenticity of Quran itself ... But these morons have no idea what archaeological and historical evidence means . And that there is enough of evidence to establish the authenticity of our claim about "preservation of original Quranic text" . 


And read this , it is worth your time : 

*'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'*

http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hakan

@Azlan Haider Nice Thread .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ajpirzada

Azlan Haider said:


> @Jazzbot @jaibi @danish falcon @Alpha1.... no contribution ??
> 
> Quran is the only "book" that all Muslims believe is "unchanged" & "perfect" , And as discussed earlier , there are enough reasons to believe in this ....
> Now the question arises that despite believing in One Allah , Same Quran & One Prophet (pbuh) , Why do the Muslims kill each other in the name of the same religion (i.e Islam) which they all follow ???
> 
> The answer seems to be very simple , They believe in different collections of *Ahadith* (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh) , often highly contradicting, and they follow different versions of the `same` Islamic History ...
> 
> But things might not be that simple , The first Islamic civil war (656-661 CE) , also known as the First Fitna , was fought among the Muslims who did not follow different Ahadith or versions of history , They were mostly companions and relatives of the prophet (pbuh) who had learnt Islam directly from the Messenger of Allah !! They did not challenge each other`s faith , They contested for the leadership of the newly born Ummah .. The divide in the Muslims was purely "political" in the beginning , which became "religious" with the passage of time . Ali (r.a) was a cousin and son in law of Muhammad (pbuh) , who fought against Aisha (r.a) [ the beloved wife of prophet (pbuh)] and Zubair bin Awwam (r.a)[also a cousin of prophet as well as Ali himself] in 656 AD , in the "battle of camel" .. Later Ali r.a had to fight Muaviyyah in "battle of siffeen" , Muaviyyah was brother in law of Muhammad (pbuh) and a distant cousin .. So the participants of the First Fitna were all related to each other , and no one tried to prove his superiority over the other claiming a kinship to Muhammad (pbuh) and "religion" stayed out of politics ..
> 
> But in the Second Islamic Civil war (ended 692 AD) , the religion could not stay out of politics . Following the Murder of Imam Hussain and almost all the male members of family of prophet (pbuh) in "battle of kerbala" by the Ummayad troops of Yazid (son of Muaviyyah) in 680 AD(The battle is often cited as the definitive break between the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam) , Yazid faced a second revolt from Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who was the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and the son of Asma bint Abu Bakr. Ibn al-Zubayr's rebellion was seen by many as an attempt to return to the pristine values of the early Islamic community, and his revolt was welcomed by a number of parties that were unhappy with the Umayyad rule for various reasons.
> 
> This was the first time that the name of "Muhammad" was used for political purposes . As is evident from archaeological record , The name of Muhammad was not minted on coins or other inscriptions before Abdullah Bin Zubair gained control of Hijaz . The oldest coins with shahada of prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) are from his time . His opponent and the Ummayad leader Abdul Malik , followed him and started using the name of prophet on coins and other inscriptions (a practice his predecessors never approved of) .* He went on to build a alternative ka`ba in jerusalem as the Ummayads had lost control of Makkah ; The famous Dome Of The Rock , and this was the time when he ordered compiling of Ahadith for political purposes , something forbidden by the messenger of Allah and the Khulfa e Rashideen , .... *
> 
> 
> 
> *al-Ya`qubi* writes is in his *Tareekh* :
> 
> _`*Abd al-Malik prevented the people of Sham from the hajj and this is because Ibn al-Zubayr was taking the pledge of allegience from the pilgrims. When `Abd al-Malik had found out about this, he prevented them from setting out to Makkah. But the people protested and said: "Do you prevent us from doing the pilgrimage to the Sacred House of Allah while it is a duty from Allah upon us ?" He said: "Here is Ibn Shihabuddin al-Zuhri narrating to you that the Messenger of Allah said: "The caravans should not be set out except for three mosques, the Sacred Mosque, my present Mosque and the Mosque of Jerusalem" [which] stands for the Sacred Mosque for you. And here is the Rock on [which] it is narrated that the Prophet set his foot before ascending to the heavens, it stands for the Ka`bah. Then he built a Dome on the Rock, suspended silk curtains on it and appointed servants for it. And told the people to revolve around it like they revolve around the Ka`bah and so it was during the rule of Bani Umayyah*_( Ahmad b. Abu Ya`qub Ibn Wadih al-Ya`qubi (Ed. M. T. Houtsma), Tarikh, 1883, Volume II, Leiden, p. 311)
> 
> Now we have two options
> 1) Reject this allegation saying that Al Yaqubi was a Shia and this is anti ummayad propaganda , or
> 2) Try to further investigate into it and see if this claim is backed by other sources or historical records
> 
> Going by option number 2 , lets see what some orientalists have to say
> 
> 
> In the passage of his _Muhammedanische Studien_, *Goldziher* puts forward in detail the theory that Umayyad caliph *`Abd al-Malik*, by erecting the* Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, intended to outsmart his rival `Abdallah b. al-Zubayr, who exploited the holiness of Makkah, his capital, for his own political ends. Goldziher wrote:*
> 
> *When the Umayyad Caliph `Abd al-Malik wished the stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival `Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had to recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that the obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka`ba ordained in Islamic Law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may make pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.(I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies* (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, pp. 44-45.)
> 
> Goldziher's theory had been adopted, uncritically or with some criticism, by many early orientalists and a few recent ones; some of them are Creswell ,Rippin , van Ess,and Elad.
> 
> Now again these are western sources and most of the Muslims will not be willing to accept them , lets try to find out what Muslims (Only Sunnis) have to say on this ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before going into details , One should know that who was *Ibn e Shihab Al Zuhri *as he is the one being accused of writing fabricated Ahadith for the Ummayad rulers ..
> 
> *Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri(d. 742 AD)* is regarded as one of the greatest Sunni authorities on Hadith. The leading critics of Hadith such as* Ibn al-Madini, Ibn Hibban, Abu Hatim, Al-Dhahabi *and* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani *are all agreed upon his indisputable authority . He can also be regarded as *the first Historian of Islam*
> 
> 
> 
> *Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri was the first one to compile Ahadees *[fath ul bari by ibne hajar]
> 
> *Imam Malik (d. 179) said, "The first one to utilise the isnad was Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri"* [Ibne abi Hatim Al Razi, aljarrah wa altadeel p.20 vol 1]
> 
> *So Ibn e Shihab Zuhri is actually the founding father of "Hadith Science" and the first one to compile Ahadith .. *
> Al Zuhri is a main narrator of both , Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari (around 1700 ahadith from him in both)
> Challenging his authority is challenging the whole "Science of Hadith" , and Al Yaqubi has accused him of writing fabricated Ahadith , so Al Yaqubi can very well be a Shia...
> But Wait ...* Is he the only one who has accused Al Zuhri of Tadlees (hadith fabrication) ??
> The answer is definitely "No"*
> 
> *Zuhri’s Tadlis is recorded in the following words:
> Imam Shaf‘i, Dara Qutani and many others have attributed Tadlis (Hadith Fabrication) to Zuhri.* (Ibn Hajar, Tabaqatu’l-Mudallisin, [Cairo: Maktabah Kulliyyat al-Azhar], pps. 32-3)
> 
> *Imam Malik also did not consider Al Zuhri trustworthy and thats why he does not narrate Zuhri`s solo traditions in his famous hadith collection "Muwatta"*
> 
> 
> Some of the greatest Sunni scholars of all times did not consider Al Zuhri to be trustworthy
> 
> Then why blame Al Yaqubi alone ???
> 
> And .....
> * Al-Zuhri himself is reported to have said: ‘We disapproved of recording knowledge [meaning hadith] until these rulers forced us to do so. After that we saw no reason to forbid Muslims to do so.’” *(Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, II, ii, p. 135)
> 
> Ibn e Saad is definitely a Sunni !! This confession by Al Zuhri himself is enough as a evidence when considered alongwith other similar reports
> 
> 
> *Ibne Shihab al-Zuhri was the first historian who wrote the history of Islam under the direct order and fund of Abdul Malik. He also wrote Hadith collection. The works of al-Zuhri was one of the main source for al-Bukhari. al-Zuhri was attached to the royal family of Abdul Malik, and was the tutor of his sons.* (al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah," by Shibli part I, pp.13-17)
> 
> Shibli is also a "great" sunni historian
> 
> Among the students of al-Zuhri, two persons, namely* Musa Ibn Uqbah*, and* Mohammad Ibn Ishaq *became famous historians. The former was a slave of the house of Zubair. Although his history is not available today, it had been the most popular work on history for a long time. You will find its references in many history books on different subjects.
> 
> *The second student, Mohammad Ibn Ishaq is the most famous historian . His biography of the Prophet, called "Sirah Rasul Allah", is still the accredited authority on the subject in the shape that was given to it by Ibn Hisham, and is known as "al-Sirah of Ibn Hisham*".
> 
> 
> *So Islamic Hadith and History books were first compiled under the direct order of Umayyah Kings for political purposes *.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And* for those who think that prophet(pbuh) did not prohibit writing down Ahadith :*
> 
> *Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Quran, he should erase that and narrate(orally) from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire** (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Chapter 17, Number 7147).*
> 
> 
> *There are other similar hadith reports, e.g., one from Abu Dawud, and another from Taqyid by al-Baghdadi confirming the Prophet’s prohibition on hadith writing and direction for erasure of any hadith*.[www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook.]
> 
> 
> *According to one report, the first Caliph Abu Bakr burned his own notes of hadith (said to be some 500), after being very uneasy about these notes*.[ Rahim, M. Abdur, The History of Hadith Compilation (in Bengali), p. 290, quoted by Jamilul Bashar, “Sangsker” (in Bengali, means Reformation), published by Young Muslim Society, New York, 2002, pp. 11.]
> 
> 
> * During the caliphate of Umer r.a, “the problem of hadith forgery was so serious that he prohibited hadith transmission altogether.”*[ Brown, Daniel W., 1996 (paperback 1999), op. cit., p. 96.]
> 
> 
> So one can safely conclude
> 1) Prophet (pbuh) and Khulfa e Rashideen did not allow writing down of Ahadith
> 2) Ibn e Shihab was the first one to violate the sunnah of prophet
> 3) The Ummayad Rulers forced Ibn e Shihab Al Zuhri to write fabricated ahadith , which Zuhri did not want to write down
> 
> 
> 
> And *Allama Muhammad Iqbal* has described this in folowng words :
> 
> Iqbal notes in his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam,* even Abu Hanifah, regarded as “one of the greatest exponents of Muhammedan Law in Sunni Islam … made practically no use of … traditions”, even though there were collections available at that time made by other people no less than thirty years before his death. Nor did he collect any hadith for his use, unlike his peers Malik and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
> Thus, according to Iqbal, “if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [Ahadith] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah].”*
> [Iqbal, A. M., The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, First Indian Edition 1997, p. 137.]



you directed me to this post. But there is nothing in this post except some criticism of Zuhri who is not alone in being criticised. Almost all the hadith scholars got their fair share of criticism. Majority hadith scholars are agreed upon that Zuhri is Trustworthy. Nonetheless, a single narration (khabar al-wahid) has a different legal status in hanafi Fiqh (and maturudi theology) than mutawatir (more than 10 chains) and mushur (2 or more chains) narration. Likewise, there is the category of 'gharib' narration which means that there might be more than one chains but in all of them there is one common link/narrator at any point. Then there is the category of 'munkar' which is further divided into 'shadh' and others. Each category has different implication with respect to the certainty of knowledge they impart. Then there are weak narrations. and all this is not even the surface of usul al-Hadith (sciences of hadith)

As for contradictions, they either fall under the category of nasikh (abrogated) rulings and mansokh (abrogator) rulings or under the category of permissibility of many ways of doing the same thing suggesting leniency or indifference. If this is not the case then everything comes back to the chain. How did the person reported from the one above him? did he hear directly, read it to him, was potentially told by someone else, or is it unspecified? If the person above in the chain is a teacher, then is there any of his other students reporting the same narration from him? etc etc

as far as prohibition of writing of hadith is concerned, it was even prohibited by the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) initially so that the focus is not diverted away from Quran. And just like many other instances when the fear subsided, Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) himself allowed for such writing. Here is the short answer by the contemporary hadith scholar Gibril Haddad:



> *A Historical Background of the Proscription of Writing Hadith and the Authenticity of Its Compilation*
> *Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad*
> Concerning the Prophet’s prohibition of writing hadith, — Allah bless and greet him — it cannot be understood except in conjunction with his order to write it. The prohibition was general while the order was particular, each with several specific reasons. Jamiat’s post mentions most of them.
> 
> One correction:
> 
> 2. In a tradition recorded in Mustadrak-e-Haakim, Hazrat Amr bin Aas (R.A.) reports, [...] I abstained from writing. I mentioned this to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and he indicated towards his tongue and said, ‘Write! By Him in whose hand is my life. Nothing except the truth comes out of it.’ (Mustadrak Vol.1 Page 104)
> 
> The name of the Companion in this authentic report is `Abd Allah ibn Amr ibn As, the son of Amr ibn As. May Allah be well-pleased with them.
> 
> 3. In one Hadith recorded in Mustadrak-Hakim, an explicit and clear order of writing is given. The words are ‘Tie down knowledge’, the Sahaabi enquired, ‘What is tying down knowledge?’ The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) replied, ‘It’s writing.’ (Mustadrak vol. 1 pg. 106)
> 
> In his book “The Tethering of Knowledge,” the hadith master al-Khatib al-Baghdadi compiled the numerous narrations on this topic, among other sources.
> 
> _Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions
> A Historical Background of the Proscription of Writing Hadith and the Authenticity of Its Compilation — As-Sunnah Foundation of America_



Also, Iqbal's quotes are totally out of context. Nowhere does Iqbal reject hadith as source of Law. Iqbal's argument is based on Fiqhi (jurisprudence) considerations rather than usul al-Hadith considerations. However, people are proving from it Iqbal's rejection of hadith which is totally unrelated to the fiqhi discourse which Iqbal is focusing on.

This distinction is not my creation but known to the scholar since the beginning. here is a very useful article if anyone is interested knowing the distinction between the two fields and the superiority of fiqh over hadith: THE SUPERIORITY OF FIQH OVER HADITH

Like i said in this post, Hadith even if of legal nature can or cannot be used as a source of legal ruling in Fiqh. The judgement requires contextualization which will then determine if the ruling is to be applied, deferred, suspended or ignored completely. This was the method of the Fiqh of Abu Hanifa especially in the matters other than worship. And iqbal is saying neither less nor more. With the passage of time the context might change such that hadith no longer remains applicable. That is why instead of rejecting the use of hadith, Iqbal calls for '*not to make any indiscriminate use*' and pushes for '*a further intelligent study of the literature of traditions, if used as indicative of the spirit in which the Prophet himself interpreted his revelation, may still be of great help in understanding the life-value of the legal principles enunciated in the Quran.*' Instead he makes it conditional that only '*a complete grasp of their life-value alone can eqiup us in our endeavour to reinterpret the foundational principles.*'

Despite the fiqhi nature/context of Iqbal's discourse, he praised the traditionalists for their work by saying, *"It is, however, impossible to deny the fact that the traditionists, by insisting on the value of the concrete case as against the tendency to abstract thinking in law, have done the greatest service to the Law of Islam." *Simple question. Can you at the same time discard the hadith work as inauthenitc and yet call it a '*greatest service to the law of islam*' rendered by those who worked on it? Moreover, Iqbal recognised hadith as the '*second great source of Muhammadan Law.*'


----------



## ajpirzada

Azlan Haider said:


> @syedali73 :
> 
> Now the Mullahs ( Zarvan ) have started to show their real face . They can never prove the authenticity of so called religious texts , compiled for political gains , centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) and Now they are trying to say that rejecting them is actually rejecting Quran !! So they are ready to question the authenticity of Quran itself ... But these morons have no idea what archaeological and historical evidence means . And that there is enough of evidence to establish the authenticity of our claim about "preservation of original Quranic text" .
> 
> 
> And read this , it is worth your time :
> 
> *'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'*
> 
> http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf



i skimmed through it and found it very superficial.

Firstly, half of the stuff is roughly related to the issue of fabricated ahadith. Well there are hundreds of books written on this subject with scholars discussing which ahadith are fabricated etc. The work by erudite hadith scholar Ibn Jawzi is one of the earlier works but has been criticized for being a careless attempt. I have a book of Mulla Ali Qari on fabricated ahadith with a detailed study by Sh. Gibril Haddad appended to the front. the book discusses more than 3000 potentially fabricated ahadith. And which scholar says what on what basis.

Similarly, the work of Bukhari was criticzed by al-Darqutani (great hadith scholar) for having weak hadith. but latter scholars showed that this was not the case since there are corroborative chains for those questionable ahadith thus raising the level of authenticity to that of sahih. There are other ahadith in Bukhair (in the titles only) which are without any chain but al-Asqalani (great hadith master) showed that these were reported by bukhari in his other works with authentic chains.

Also the reference to al-hakim's mustadrak in the booklet reflects limited knowledge of hadith scholarship. The author probably does not know that al-hakim's grading of hadith in his work is not relied upon by the hadith scholars. It contains many weak and fabricated ahadith which were graded authentic by him.

As for abu hurraira (r.a) is concerned, he was a great hadith complier but he was not the faqih. Therefore, neither the companions nor the scholars rely on legal opinions of abu Hurrayra (r.a). Like wise for many other companions. Only around 10 or may be less than 10 companions were resorted to by the muslim population in the matters of legal verdict. Abu Hurrayra (r.a) was corrected by Umm ul-Mumineen Aisha (r.a.) on saveral occasions with regards to his hadith interpretation. Where then is the problem?

I also mentioned earlier, that the certainty which which knowledge is imparted by any hadith is subjected to lots of qualifications.

And like i mentioned in the post before, hadith and fiqh are totally different. Not every hadith is practised upon despite its autheniticity and this is much more apparent in Abu Hanifa's fiqh than others. Similarly i gave a link in the previous post on the virtues of fiqh over that of hadith. An odd hadith, therefore, is unlikely to creep into the legal rulings. This is a latter period problem in the muslim history with the advent of ahl-e-hadith people who practice on any hadith especially sahih without resorting to any fiqhi methods of evaluation.

Iqbal had a similar issue with the use of hadith in the absence of fiqhi evaluation as reflected by his frequent references to Abu Hanifa's (rha) methodology.


----------



## W.11

there are many old Quranic manuscripts at the biggest library of asia in Karachi by hakeem muhammad saeed, i have seen them


----------



## M. Sarmad

ajpirzada said:


> you directed me to this post. But there is nothing in this post except some criticism of Zuhri who is not alone in being criticised. Almost all the hadith scholars got their fair share of criticism. Majority hadith scholars are agreed upon that Zuhri is Trustworthy. Nonetheless, a single narration (khabar al-wahid) has a different legal status in hanafi Fiqh (and maturudi theology) than mutawatir (more than 10 chains) and mushur (2 or more chains) narration. Likewise, there is the category of 'gharib' narration which means that there might be more than one chains but in all of them there is one common link/narrator at any point. Then there is the category of 'munkar' which is further divided into 'shadh' and others. Each category has different implication with respect to the certainty of knowledge they impart. Then there are weak narrations. and all this is not even the surface of usul al-Hadith (sciences of hadith)
> As for contradictions, they either fall under the category of nasikh (abrogated) rulings and mansokh (abrogator) rulings or under the category of permissibility of many ways of doing the same thing suggesting leniency or indifference. If this is not the case then everything comes back to the chain. How did the person reported from the one above him? did he hear directly, read it to him, was potentially told by someone else, or is it unspecified? If the person above in the chain is a teacher, then is there any of his other students reporting the same narration from him? etc etc



Sir , I directed you to this post so that you would share your views on "History of Hadith Writing" , before discussing "Hadith Science" itself .. But you have directly jumped to the "Hadith Science" without trying to counter any of my arguments ...

Nothing except some criticism on Zuhri ??? Are you sure sir ? Did you even read my post ? ........ Ibn e Shihab Zuhri was the first one to violate the Sunnah of prophet (by writing down hadith which the prophet pbuh didn`t allow) on orders of Ummayad Kings ....... And I gave multiple references ... Arab historians , Indian historians , Orientalists ..... And two great Muhadithsen , all agree that he was the first one to write Hadith ... (some 70 years after the death of Holy Prophet pbuh) ... no one before him dared to violate the Sunnah of Holy prophet ...........




ajpirzada said:


> as far as prohibition of writing of hadith is concerned, it was even prohibited by the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) initially so that the focus is not diverted away from Quran. And just like many other instances when the fear subsided, Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) himself allowed for such writing. Here is the short answer by the contemporary hadith scholar Gibril Haddad:



Yes Sir , this is the answer I get every time ... I read this in Sharh of Imam Nawawi as well ... But this explanation can not be accepted .... This hadith in Sahih Muslim has been related to Abu-Saeed al-Khudri that the Holy Prophet said,_ 'You must erase anything that has been recorded about me except the Holy QUR'AN.' ........ Now_ Abu Saeed al Khudri was an ansari ..... he was too young to fight at the Battle of Uhud in 625 ... And the prophet (pbuh) died in 632 ... So essentially Abu Saeed Khudri heard this hadith from the prophet (pbuh) during his last years in Medina .. Saying that "hadith writing was prohibited "initially" only is absolutely wrong ... Furthermore the Quranic verse _*"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian"*_[15:9] was revealed in Mecca ... Prophet (pbuh) couldn`t fear that _"Quran may get mixed with Hadith"_ [another lame excuse often repeated] once this Ayah was revealed ...

As far as "permission granted for writing it down on special occasions under special circumstances" is concerned ...those orders were not "general" ... And the prophet said "erase everything that you have written down (previously)" towards the end of his life !!! And this is simply proven by the fact that khulfa e Rashideen didn`t allow writing down of Ahadith during their life times and no one , until the time of Ibn e Shihab Zuhri dared to violate this Sunnah of the prophet ...

And then there is the "last excuse" ..._ "A consensus among scholars made Hadith writing legitimate" ......_ Now there is a serious problem with this one too ..... How can "Ijma" make lawful what the prophet (pbuh) had made unlawful ???




ajpirzada said:


> Here is the short answer by the contemporary hadith scholar Gibril Haddad:



You are contradicting yourself here .. You are quoting Gibril Haddad and he has quoted Ahadith from Mustadrak-Hakim .. Hadith from Mustadrak can not be taken over Hadith from Sahih Muslim ..... And here is what you have said while trying to refute an article I posted :



ajpirzada said:


> *Also the reference to alhakim's mustadrak in the booklet reflects limited knowledge of hadith scholarship*. The author probably does not know that alhakim's grading of hadith in his work is not relied upon by the hadith scholars. It contains many weak and fabricated ahadith which were graded authentic by him.





ajpirzada said:


> Also, Iqbal's quotes are totally out of context. Nowhere does Iqbal reject hadith as source of Law. Iqbal's argument is based on Fiqhi (jurisprudence) considerations rather than usul al-Hadith considerations. However, people are proving from it Iqbal's rejection of hadith which is totally unrelated to the fiqhi discourse which Iqbal is focusing on.
> This distinction is not my creation but known to the scholar since the beginning. here is a very useful article if anyone is interested knowing the distinction between the two fields and the superiority of fiqh over hadith: THE SUPERIORITY OF FIQH OVER HADITH
> Like i said in this post, Hadith even if of legal nature can or cannot be used as a source of legal ruling in Fiqh. The judgement requires contextualization which will then determine if the ruling is to be applied, deferred, suspended or ignored completely. This was the method of the Fiqh of Abu Hanifa especially in the matters other than worship. And iqbal is saying neither less nor more. With the passage of time the context might change such that hadith no longer remains applicable. That is why instead of rejecting the use of hadith, Iqbal calls for 'not to make any indiscriminate use' and pushes for 'a further intelligent study of the literature of traditions, if used as indicative of the spirit in which the Prophet himself interpreted his revelation, may still be of great help in understanding the life-value of the legal principles enunciated in the Quran.' Instead he makes it conditional that only 'a complete grasp of their life-value alone can eqiup us in our endeavour to reinterpret the foundational principles.'
> Despite the fiqhi nature/context of Iqbal's discourse, he praised the traditionalists for their work by saying, "It is, however, impossible to deny the fact that the traditionists, by insisting on the value of the concrete case as against the tendency to abstract thinking in law, have done the greatest service to the Law of Islam." Simple question. Can you at the same time discard the hadith work as inauthenitc and yet call it a 'greatest service to the law of islam' rendered by those who worked on it? Moreover, Iqbal recognised hadith as the 'second great source of Muhammadan Law.'



I replied to your post in the other thread :

Best way to implement Sharia in Pakistan ??? | Page 33


----------



## ajpirzada

Azlan Haider said:


> Sir , I directed you to this post so that you would share your views on "History of Hadith Writing" , before discussing "Hadith Science" itself .. But you have directly jumped to the "Hadith Science" without trying to counter any of my arguments ...
> 
> Nothing except some criticism on Zuhri ??? Are you sure sir ? Did you even read my post ? ........ Ibn e Shihab Zuhri was the first one to violate the Sunnah of prophet (by writing down hadith which the prophet pbuh didn`t allow) on orders of Ummayad Kings ....... And I gave multiple references ... Arab historians , Indian historians , Orientalists ..... And two great Muhadithsen , all agree that he was the first one to write Hadith ... (some 70 years after the death of Holy Prophet pbuh) ... no one before him dared to violate the Sunnah of Holy prophet ...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Sir , this is the answer I get every time ... I read this in Sharh of Imam Nawawi as well ... But this explanation can not be accepted .... This hadith in Sahih Muslim has been related to Abu-Saeed al-Khudri that the Holy Prophet said,_ 'You must erase anything that has been recorded about me except the Holy QUR'AN.' ........ Now_ Abu Saeed al Khudri was an ansari ..... he was too young to fight at the Battle of Uhud in 625 ... And the prophet (pbuh) died in 632 ... So essentially Abu Saeed Khudri heard this hadith from the prophet (pbuh) during his last years in Medina .. Saying that "hadith writing was prohibited "initially" only is absolutely wrong ... Furthermore the Quranic verse _*"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian"*_[15:9] was revealed in Mecca ... Prophet (pbuh) couldn`t fear that _"Quran may get mixed with Hadith"_ [another lame excuse often repeated] once this Ayah was revealed ...
> 
> As far as "permission granted for writing it down on special occasions under special circumstances" is concerned ...those orders were not "general" ... And the prophet said "erase everything that you have written down (previously)" towards the end of his life !!! And this is simply proven by the fact that khulfa e Rashideen didn`t allow writing down of Ahadith during their life times and no one , until the time of Ibn e Shihab Zuhri dared to violate this Sunnah of the prophet ...
> 
> And then there is the "last excuse" ..._ "A consensus among scholars made Hadith writing legitimate" ......_ Now there is a serious problem with this one too ..... How can "Ijma" make lawful what the prophet (pbuh) had made unlawful ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are contradicting yourself here .. You are quoting Gibril Haddad and he has quoted Ahadith from Mustadrak-Hakim .. Hadith from Mustadrak can not be taken over Hadith from Sahih Muslim ..... And here is what you have said while trying to refute an article I posted :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I replied to your post in the other thread :
> 
> Best way to implement Sharia in Pakistan ??? | Page 33



My apologies if you felt i was inappropriate in my response.

As we have discussing in the other thread, the need for Ijtihad is always there. Suspending one sunnah or leaving it falls under Fiqh and there are conditions when this can be done. This is the point on which Iqbals is basing his narrative - the contextualization of hadith as a source of Sunnah.

the reason of my jumping to the science of hadith was to highlight different levels of authentication and the varying degree of certainty they impart. Since the author in the booklet mentioned the impossibility of knowing who is lying or not. Therefore, the doubt which the author is expressing is already being entertained when it comes to the use of hadith as a source of Fiqh and Creed.

However, it seems that my comment for the author on the use of al-hakim's mustadrak was unfair since he is trying to make a point contrary to what i understood yesterday. apologies to him in his absence. Nonetheless, I havent contradicted myself. A hadith in not authenitic because of which book it is citied in but on the basis of its isnad (chain). Bukhari and Muslim are best compilations because of the autheniticity of their chains not the other way round. My point about Mustadrik was that some of the grading in it done by al-Hakim are wrong and latter scholars have corrected those gradings.

Zuhri was not the first one strictly speaking and was neither alone in writing hadith or compiling a book. writing and taking notes was being encouraged even during the time of latter companions. all of us should read this for better understanding as far as the written history and other issues raised by the Oriantalists are concerned: http://www.abc.se/home/m9783/ir/d/myor_e.pdf

once again, apologies for a crude response in the previous post. i can myself smell some arrogance in my yesterday's post. may Allah forgive me


----------



## Fatima Khan0007

M. Sarmad said:


> Now as we have almost no inscriptions / original writings that can be dated back to the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or the rightly guided caliphs (Khulfa e Rashideen) , All the knowledge of that time and those persons have reached us through 3 different sources(textual) , compiled in later times ;
> 
> *1) The Holy Quran* (word of Allah)
> *2) The Ahadith* (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh)
> *3) The History Texts* (crystallization of popular beliefs)
> 
> This led the skeptical scholars like Crone, Wansbrough, and Nevo to argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150–300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events hence unreliable . They also point out that the earliest account of Muhammad's life by Ibn Ishaq was written about a century after Muhammad died and all later narratives by Islamic biographers contain far more details and embellishments about events which are entirely lacking in Ibn Ishaq's text . Also the hadith books were written at least two centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) .
> These objections from such scholars are somewhat genuine but the conclusions drawn by them are easily refutable . To understand this in detail , one must try to find answers to following questions first :
> 
> *1) *_When was the Holy Quran compiled (into a Book form) ? Has the "Original Text" reached us ?_
> *2)*_ When and Why were the Hadith Books written ? _
> *3)*_ Who wrote the Islamic History and for whom ?_
> 
> *1) HISTORY OF THE QURAN :*
> 
> In the 19th century the Danish scholar Theodor Nöldeke, in his influential _Geschichte des Qorans_ (1860; “History of the Qurʾān”), largely rejected the Islamic understanding of the process whereby the text of the Qurʾān was compiled. Since then others, such as I. Goldziher, Richard Bell, and Jeffrey and W.M. Watt, have challenged the traditional Islamic perspective, while more recently John Wansbrough and John Burton have completely rejected pious traditions concerning the compilation of the Qurʾān. Although Burton believed that Muhammad himself sanctioned a complete text of the Qurʾān before his death, Wansbrough argued that there was no definitive text until the 9th century. *The various Western views have all been addressed by contemporary Muslim scholars, *who have based their responses on the earliest historical sources and archaeological evidence as well as on oral tradition, but these views still dominate much of the academic study of the Qurʾān in the West.
> Qur'an (sacred text) :: Compilation -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim perspective :
> Category: The Authenticity and Preservation of the Holy Quran - The Religion of Islam
> 
> How Do We Know the Quran is Unchanged? | Lost Islamic History
> 
> Examining The Qur'an
> 
> ​----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ​*The Dome of the Rock* is the oldest Islamic monument that stands today and certainly one of the most beautiful. It also boasts the oldest surviving mihrab (niche indicating the direction of Mecca) in the world.
> *The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock in fact represent the earliest known dated passages from the Qur'an *(72 after the Hijra or 691–692 CE)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *INSCRIPTIONS ON THE INNER OCTAGONAL ARCADE*
> 
> *S* In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has
> no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has
> Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.
> *SE* Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
> O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be
> on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
> *E* nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of
> Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
> from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
> *NE* better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
> in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
> sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
> *N* servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
> His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
> Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
> *NW* son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies,
> and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of
> the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
> *W *When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
> Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God
> save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,
> *SW* the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book
> differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso
> disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!
> 
> *INSCRIPTIONS ON THE OUTER OCTAGONAL ARCADE*
> 
> 
> *S* In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no
> associate. Say: He is God, the One! God, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there
> is none comparable unto Him. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.
> *SW* In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God.
> He is One. He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God.
> Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
> *W *O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a
> worthy salutation. In the name of God, the Merciful
> the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. Praise be to
> *NW *God, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath
> no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend
> through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence. Muḥammad is the Messenger of
> *N *God, the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be
> on him, and may God have mercy. In the name of God, the Merciful
> the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate.
> *NE* Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth. And He giveth death; and He has
> Power over all things. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be
> on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment on behalf of his people.
> *E *In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One.
> He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be
> on him. The dome was built by servant of God ʿAbd
> *SE* [Allah the Imam al-Ma'mun, Commander] of the Faithful, in the year two and seventy. May God accept from him and be content
> with him. Amen, Lord of the worlds, praise be to God.
> 
> *INSCRIPTIONS AT THE EASTERN ENTRANCE*
> 
> 
> In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to God other than Whom there is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal, the Originator of the heavens and the earth and the Light of the heavens
> and the earth and the Pillar of the heavens and the earth, the One, the eternally Besought of all; He begotteth not nor was begotten and there is none comparable unto Him, Owner of Sovereignty!
> Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt, all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You, and its fate is (determined) by You, Lord of glory
> the Merciful, the Compassionate. He hath prescribed for Himself mercy, and His mercy embraceth all things; May He be glorified and exalted. As for what the polytheists associate (with You), we ask You, oh God by
> Your mercy and by Your beautiful names and by Your noble face and Your awesome power and Your perfect word, on which are based the heavens and the earth and
> through which we are preserved by Your mercy from Satan and are saved from Your punishment (on) the Day of Judgment and by Your abundant favour and by Your great grace and forbearance and omnipotence
> and forgiveness and liberality, that You bless Muḥammad, Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and ....
> From the servant of Allah ʿAbdullah al-Ma'mun al-Imam, Commander of the Faithful, may Allah prolongs its duration! In the rule of the brother of Commander of the Faithful Abu Ishaq, son of Commander of the Faithful
> al-Rashid, that Allah makes it last. And (this work) had place by the hands of Salih b. Yaḥya, the _mawali_ of Commander of the Faithful, in the month of _Rabi‘ al-Akhir_ of year 216.
> *INSCRIPTIONS AT THE NORTHERN PORTAL*
> 
> 
> In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God than Whom there is no god but He. The Living, the Eternal; He has no associate, the One, the eternally Besought of all - He
> begetteth not nor was begotten, and there is none comparable unto Him. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His messenger whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion
> however much idolators may be averse. We believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muḥammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him
> we have surrendered. The blessing of God be upon Muḥammad, His servant and His prophet, and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and His blessing and His forgiveness and His acceptance.


i have keen interest in islamic history and this is agreat post thanks alot for sharing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

