Answering Muslims: Ibn Mas'ud on Zaid's Mushaf

Home

Monday, February 9, 2009

Ibn Mas'ud on Zaid's Mushaf

According to Ibn Mas'ud, Muhammad's top teacher of the Qur'an, Muslims are to "avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation" of Zaid ibn Thabit. Unfortunately, that's all Muslims have today!

Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104--Az-Zuhri said: "Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'"

Posted by David Wood at 1:51 AM

Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

Labels: Qur'an (Preservation)

32 comments:

Nakdimon said...: MAN! I would strongly urge for a series of debates on the topic “Textual preservation of the New Testament vs the Qur’an”. That would settle it once and for all. I would like to know which Islamic apologists would have the willingness to defend the Qur’an. Any suggestions?; February 9, 2009 at 4:47 AM
Nakdimon said...: Oh, by the way David, when will you get it to your greasy head: This hadith is "weak"!; February 9, 2009 at 5:37 AM
Nakdimon said...: (slightly off topic!)

WOW David. I am listening to your debate with Shadeed Lewis again and I want to thank you for being the only historically accurate apologist I have heard so far. Why? You spoke about “first century Israel” in your opening statement instead of the inaccurate “first century Palestine” that I keep hearing people talk about all the time.

Minor but such an important detail, nonetheless.

Todah achi, (thank you brother)
Nakdimon; February 9, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Muhammad said...: First, why do you choose a Sahabi and automatically name him the top, you do this a bunch of times throughout your blog.
Second, I am going to have a look at its authenticity.
Third, the reason was that Ibn Mas'ud did not like that someone as young as Zaid copy the Qur'an, as he was more senior in Islam than him.

That's all, anyone with a mind and has read the conversation could see that.

Anyhow, soon we will see.; February 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Fernando said...: Muhammid saide: «Third, the reason was that Ibn Mas'ud did not like that someone as young as Zaid copy the Qur'an, as he was more senior in Islam than him»...

Where is that saide? Aint just your interpretatione?; February 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM
David Wood said...: Muhammad said: "Third, the reason was that Ibn Mas'ud did not like that someone as young as Zaid copy the Qur'an, as he was more senior in Islam than him."

That's exactly the point. Who's more likely to be accurate: (1) a man who had been with Muhammad for a long time, had heard Muhammad recite the Qur'an for many years, knew where practically every Ayah was revealed because he was there when it happened, and was declared by Muhammad to be the greatest teacher of the Qur'an, or (2) a person who had been with Muhammad for a relatively short time, had heard Muhammad recite the Qur'an for only a short period, only knew about when Ayahs were revealed if someone happened to tell him about it, and was in disagreement with Muhammad's greatest teacher of the Qur'an? Who's more likely to be right if there are disagreements between these men?; February 9, 2009 at 12:56 PM
DAN12345 said...: Hadiths are always "weak" when muslims are shocked by the context of the hadith and they cant answer,,,,errrerrrr errrr its weak!u idiots!!!!Who is the judge if its weak or not a muslim?YES,,EMMMMMM; February 9, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Muhammad said...: David said, "That's exactly the point. Who's more likely to be accurate"
Did you know that the Mus-haf of Zaid was approved my almost EVERY companion?
I think you misunderstood my point, Ibn Mas'ud was NOT doubting Zaid's knowledge, he just thought that someone older should be the one to collect it.
The thing you forget to mention, is that Ibn Mas'ud later on approved of Zaid's Mus-haf.
Likewise, you forget to mention that Ibn Mas'ud was the single one who spoke out about Zaid, also that Ibn Mas'ud retracted after realizing that his opinion was countered by the mere fact that almost every companion approved.

"and was in disagreement with Muhammad's greatest teacher of the Qur'an?"

Like I said, who said that Ibn Mas'ud was Muhammad's greatest teacher of the Qur'an?
Have you heard of Mu'ath bin Jabal, Ibn Abbas, Uthman bin Affan, and many others?
What is the criteria that you used to come to the conclusion that Ibn Mas'ud is the greatest out of the lofty lot?; February 9, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Nabeel Qureshi said...: Muhammad -

It seems you have not thoroughly investigated the origins of the Quranic text. What you've asked for multiple times is a well known fact, namely that Muhammad's chief teacher of the Qur'an was Ibn Masud:

Narrated Masriq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' "
- Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 61

Ibn Masud is known to have disagreed with Zaid's mushaf on multiple accounts. To say that he "later on approved Zaid's mushaf" without mentioning that this was at the command of Uthman is either a gross oversight or simple deception. I prefer to think you succumbed to the former, and that is why I'm guessing you that you have not thoroughly investigated the origins of the Quranic text.

Unfortunately I have no more time to dialogue about this in the near future, but if you'd like to see our position on the textual integrity of the Quran, read some of the blogs from late December and early January.

Cheers,
-Nabeel; February 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Nabeel Qureshi said...: PS, I accidentally left out the bit where Masriq identified Ibn Masud as Muhammad's number one teacher. Sorry for that gross oversight, but I need to run - see the old posts and you'll find it! God bless you, friend!; February 9, 2009 at 6:47 PM
ben malik said...: Muhammad, please quote the reference where Ibn Masud retracted his position since when you do you will be in for a surprise. So I will wait for your reference with its context.; February 9, 2009 at 6:51 PM
ben malik said...: Nabeel,

They you wrote that statement it seems to imply that Muhammad had many people whp taught him but the best teacher he had was Ibn Masud. Did you mean that Ibn Masud was personally picked by Muhammad as the best teacher and reciter of the Quran among the Muslims?; February 9, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Muhammad said...: Nabeel said, "It seems you have not thoroughly investigated the origins of the Quranic text. What you've asked for multiple times is a well known fact, namely that Muhammad's chief teacher of the Qur'an was Ibn Masud"
Ok so when you quoted the Hadith from Bukhari, you proved my point, David kept repeating, "Greatest", not, "One of the Greatest", as greatest implies that there is none greater than him, when the Prophet put him on the level of three others.

"Narrated Masriq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' "
- Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 61"

Where did you paste this Hadith from? Because I think there is a typo error, it should be Masruq, who used to narrate from 'Alqama from Ibn Mas'ud. Please show me, as it could be from another person named Masriq.

"Ibn Masud is known to have disagreed with Zaid's mushaf on multiple accounts. To say that he "later on approved Zaid's mushaf" without mentioning that this was at the command of Uthman is either a gross oversight or simple deception. I prefer to think you succumbed to the former, and that is why I'm guessing you that you have not thoroughly investigated the origins of the Quranic text."

Ibn Mas'ud was not disagreeing with Zaid in regards to the text, he was upset that he was not chosen to be on that four man committee for collecting the Qur'an, as Muslim Scholars said, and since the Prophet gave people encouragement to learn with him, as in the Hadith that you quoted. Refer to Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, and al-Masahif pg. 17.

Another important fact, Ibn Mas'ud refused to give his Mus-haf to Uthman, or burn it, since he had his commentary written on the margins, and did not want to lose his notes.

Al-Zurqani said in Manahil al-'Irfan, 1/282-3, regarding the allegation of the Athar which David first posted, in summary he said that Ibn Mas'ud referred to himself in the Athar due to his seniority and reliability, and he considered it to be more than Zaid's. Al-Zurqani is not intending to take anything away from Zaid, just so no one jumps the gun.
Al-Zurqani then goes to mention that even if Ibn Mas'ud did in fact disparage Zaid, there were three others who were appointed to the task. He then states that even if he was disparaging Zaid and the authenticity of the Qur'an, the mere fact that he retracted and burnt his own Mus-haf is a proof to the contrary.

Ibn Abu Dawud mentioned in al-Masahif, pg. 12. that Ibn Mas'ud returned to Uthman's view.

As for Zaid, Abu Bakr and Uthman both accepted him, and Abu Bakr is the greatest Muslim ever.
Ahmad collected another narration, where he says, "Zaid is another kid." Which proves what I said about Ibn Mas'ud's disparagement of Zaid. Likewise the Sahihain collect that Ibn Mas'ud said, "Which Qira'ah am I supposed to read with? Not with Zaid's by Allah, I have heard seventy and some Surahs with Allah's Messenger, while Zaid was a child playing with the children." Which further proves what I said, Ibn Mas'ud is referring to the Ahruf. His Qira'ah was not contradicting Zaid's, just implying other meanings.

Think of something, Abu Bakr, the greatest Muslim after the Prophet, appointed Zaid to collect the Qur'an in his time, why did not Ibn Mas'ud object? The reason is that he was not appointed, and he considered himself to have seniority in knowledge and age to Zaid. But he was in Kufa at the time, so it was hard for him to be part of the committee.; February 9, 2009 at 8:54 PM
ben malik said...: Muhammad,

Please substantiate your assertions that Masud didn't want to burn his codex because of his notes in the margin. And then provide a narration that shows him burning it and also explain your contradiction here, since you said he didn't want to have it burned because of his notes but then you claim he burned it anyway since he retracted his position concerning Zaid's text. So did he not burn it initially because of his notes or because he refused to acknowledge the authority of Zai'ds mushaf?

Finally, quote an authentic report that says that the only reason why Masud disparaged Zaid is because he was upset that they didn't include him in the committee. The hadiths thta have been ited here and elsewhere soundly refutes that distortion.

And I am still waiting for you to quote the reference which says he retracted since if you actually have read what he is reported to have said concerning Zaid's textaftr he "retracted" it will spell more problems for your view.; February 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM
ben malik said...: Another point. Whatever happened to Masud's notes after he burned his mushaf? I mean if they were so valuable that he refused to have his codex destroyed then surely he would have done something to preserve them. So where are his notes?; February 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Nakdimon said...: Ben malik, those notes are "lost", dummy! Dont you know that everything in Islam gets lost? First the Torah, then the Gospel and now the notes of Ibn Mas'ud. What's next? Hopefully the Qur'an!; February 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM
ben malik said...: I amen that! Hopefully the Quran will be destroyed and lost to mankind forever!; February 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Muhammad said...: Ben Malik,

First of all, are you Arab by any chance? I am asking because then I can bring an Arabic text and not have to spend time translating it.

To proceed, you said, "Please substantiate your assertions that Masud didn't want to burn his codex because of his notes in the margin."
I quoted in my previous comment, al-Zurqani, who said these things. Please look back, and if you insist, when I get a chance in a few hours and have access to my books, I will prove it thoroughly by Allah's Will.

"also explain your contradiction here, since you said he didn't want to have it burned because of his notes but then you claim he burned it anyway since he retracted his position concerning Zaid's text. So did he not burn it initially because of his notes or because he refused to acknowledge the authority of Zai'ds mushaf?"

Did you read my comment? It clearly says that it is both reasons, let me break it down so it could be so easy, a caveman could understand it!

1) He did not like the fact that Zaid was in charge of collecting the Mus-haf, due to him being relativly young.
2) He was not going to give his Mus-haf in because he heard that specific Qira'ah from Allah's Messenger himself.
3) He was not going to give it in because he had notes written on the margins.
4) He later realized that he was the only one who had this view.
5) He also realized that it was not only Zaid collecting the Mus-haf, but a four man committee.
6) He also remembered that Abu Bakr had previously given authority to Zaid to collect the Mus-haf.
7) So on Uthman's order, he ended up burning it, or giving it in.

Got it?

"Finally, quote an authentic report that says that the only reason why Masud disparaged Zaid is because he was upset that they didn't include him in the committee. The hadiths thta have been ited here and elsewhere soundly refutes that distortion."

I never said that, that is the only reason. I clearly mentioned a number of reasons, thank you. Show me the Hadiths, please.

"And I am still waiting for you to quote the reference which says he retracted since if you actually have read what he is reported to have said concerning Zaid's textaftr he "retracted" it will spell more problems for your view."

Keep waiting patiently, it is coming soon inshaAllah.

"Another point. Whatever happened to Masud's notes after he burned his mushaf? I mean if they were so valuable that he refused to have his codex destroyed then surely he would have done something to preserve them. So where are his notes?"

Wow, have you read anything about Tafsir? Have you heard of Alqama? Ibn Mas'ud's greatest pupil? We have all of Ibn Mas'ud's Tafasir. But since I am sure that you have never read Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and more recent Tafsir, Tafsir al-Sa'di, by Shaykh Abd al-Rahman bin Nasir al-Sa'adi.
If you had you would not have made that pretty dumbfounded statement.

Have you ever seen a book published in Arabic, called, Tafsir Ibn Mas'ud, and another called Tafsir Ibn Abbas? That proves that they each had other manuscrupts, and even if he did burn that manuscript with his notes, he had tons of students who relayed what he said, and wrote what he said, foremost being 'Alqama.; February 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Muhammad said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 10, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Muhammad said...: Sorry I posted the same comment twice.; February 10, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Fernando said...: Muhammid said: «Keep waiting patiently»... so? Where're them? All your pseudo-arguments (do you know A? B? C? D? E? F?... is jueste a foonie example...) are empty without what you saide you would probide...; February 11, 2009 at 6:55 AM
ben malik said...: Muhammad,

Your post shows that you have no evidence to back up your claims. Zurqani IS NOT MASUD, so I could care less what he says. So let me repeat my request a second. Can you please provide a reference where Ibn Masud is quoted as saying that he did not want to give up his codex because of his notes. And also can you give us the exatc date of Zurqani's reference so the readers here can see when Zurqani wrote what he did.

And thank you for confirming what Wood and Qureshi have been posting from your so called authentict narrations. Masud didn't want to give up his codex to Zaid's since he felt his recnesion was superior seeing that he knew more of the Quran then Zaid did.

I see you got pretty upset when I challenged you to explain whatever happened to Masud's notes. You come up with the lame explanation that his students preserved them and can be found in the commentaries of scholars such as Tabarai. Once, let me restate the question so you can actually respond to it. Seeing that you claimed that Masud did not want to give up his codex for burning because his notes were in it, can you explain why he went ahead and had it destroyed. If these notes were so precious why did he agree to have them destroyed in the copy of the Quran which he compiled for mass reading in Iraq?

Moreover, whenevr the commentaries that you are referencing mention a variant reading from Ibn Masud's version they do not say that this is his personal note. They acknolwedge that this was part of his version which he memorized and taught to others as part of the Quran. I even have some evidence from al-Bukhari to prove this. In fact, it comes from al-Qama, the gentleman you were rubbing in my face:

Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, "O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion." Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), "I hope Allah has given me my request." The man asked (me), "Where are you from?" I replied, "I am from the people of Kufa." He said, "Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night: 92)?" I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female." (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, "BY ALLAH, the Prophet made me read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) TRIED THEIR BEST to let me say something different." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105)

Here is another:

Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama."How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:

‘By the male and the female.’ Abu Ad-Darda said, "I TESTIFY that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

‘And by Him Who created male and female.’ BUT BY ALLAH, I WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468; see also Volume 5, Book 57, Number 85)

Wow, these narrations, one of which comes from is Alqama, sure exposed you and your perfectly preserved Quran since they don't say that Ibn Masud's variant reading was simply his personal note but was actaully the way Muhammad told him to recite it.

Now since I can be wrong concerning what the other commentators said concerning this topic perhaps you can be so kind as to quote from one of them where they say that the variants which they list from Ibn Masud are his personal notes in the margin and not part of the Quran which he received from Muhammad.

And I am going to ask you once again whether you can provide an authentic source that says that Ibn Masud burned his codex as you initially claimed. But I see you somewhat modified your position since you now say that he may have given it in instead of personally burning it.

I do appreciate you quoting Ibn Masud saying that he agrees to give up his codex in light of all you claim concerning his finding out that ABu Bakr approved of Zaid, others were involved, and that no one else disagreed with Zaid's codex. I have one which refutes you but I will wait for your evidence.; February 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Muhammad said...: Ben Malik,

Real quick, are you Arab? Can you understand Arabic? It will make things easier.

Secondly, when I said be patient, I meant it, I am gathering some stuff, so, be patient!

Fernando, my question stands, have you ever seen a classical book on Mustalah, or a dictionary, by any chance at all?

I will be back, don't worry.; February 11, 2009 at 6:51 PM
ben malik said...: I am not an Arab but know plenty of Arabs. And if you do post something in Arabic please make sure to translate it so that everyone here can benefit and see what your source claims.; February 11, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Muhammad said...: Ben Malik,

As for your most recent comment, I will have to deal with it later, as I was basically responding to the comments posted before that one.

Firstly, it was asked who is az-Zurqani. His name is Muhammad Abd al-Adhim az-Zurqani, he died the year 1367 Hijri, and he has a book called, Manahil al-‘Irfan fee Ulum al-Qur’an.
He stated therein, 1/283,
“The fourth doubt:
They say that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said, ‘O Muslims, segregate yourselves and do not give in your Masahif to be copied, for indeed the one who is in charge is someone who, by Allah I was Muslim when he was still a Kafir.’
They say, that he means Zaid bin Thabit in this, and he intended, by what he said, to attack and dismiss the entire Qur’an, and this alludes to the Qur’an that is with us not being Mutawatir, and not reliable.
We shall remove their doubts, firstly, if Ibn Mas’ud’s speech, if it is even authentic, does not mean a disparagement of the entire Qur’an, but it shows that he thought of himself of being more worthy of this collecting being attributed to him, because he thought of himself more reliable than Zaid in this subject. However this does not remove the fact that Ibn Mas’ud was close with Zaid, according to what has been narrated from him, but in this instance he saw in himself more qualification. Apart from the fact that this is a evaluative issue, and no doubt, Abu Bakr, Umar, and ‘Uthman’s evaluation of Zaid weighs more than Ibn Mas’ud’s of Zaid. How could it not be, when tests were put in front of Zaid, and questions were asked regarding him, before he was chosen for this task. Add to that the fact that ‘Uthman appointed along with him, three others, and he, and the majority of the Sahaba were watching over them, and that includes ‘Uthman himself, who was one of the memorizers, and teachers of the Qur’an!
So the summary of this response, is that it is correct Ibn Mas’ud’s objection was only due to how the committee was put together, not due to the authenticity of the collection itself.
Along with the fact that his preceded speech does not show anything except that he thought himself to be more senior to Zaid by a large margin, since Abdullah was already a Muslim, when Zaid was still under the control of his father. But this is not a disparagement of Zaid, since how many of the Sahaba were like that, they left Kufr to become Muslims, and if age was really a factor, then the whole worldly system would be messed up. Further, the statement of Ibn Mas’ud, perhaps disparagement is understood from it from the point of view that Zaid’s father was a Kafir, however that is not a disparagement, since many of the major Sahaba were disbelievers, or were under the rule of their disbelieving fathers. Allah said, ‘No soul will carry the burden of another’, and, ‘Say to the disbelievers that if they stop it, whatever evil actions which preceded will be forgiven.’
Secondly, that if we acknowledge the authenticity of what was narrated from Ibn Mas’ud, and acknowledge that he intended to disparage the authenticity of the Mus-haf, one thing we do acknowledge also then would be that he retracted from his disparagement, as has been authentically reported from him, that he went back and accepted the Mus-haf of ‘Uthman, and burnt his Mus-haf in the end, after it was made clear to him that it is the truth, and that is using the authentic proof from the Qira’ah of ‘Asim from Zur’ah, and it has preceded.
Thirdly, even if we acknowledge that Ibn Mas’ud’s statement is authentic, and that he intended to disparage the authenticity of the collection of the Qur’an, and that he insisted upon it and did not retract, then we do not acknowledge that it plays a part in discrediting the Tawatur of the Qur’an, because Tawatur, as we pointed out, is enough cutting evidence that it is authentic, because it is impossible that so many Muslims narrate it, and all of them are lying, and there are preconditions to Tawatur, and it is not that they all must be exactly identical, so Ibn Mas’ud differing with anyone else would not harm it, since all of the Sahaba agreed upon it, both in the time of Abu Bakr, and the time of ‘Uthman.” [End quote, ended at pg. 284]

The Sahaba all agreed upon Uthman’s burning of the Masahif, Ibn Abu Dawud collected in, al-Masahif, 1/45, from Mus’ab bin Sa’d who said, “I found overwhelming support for Uthman from the people, however it surprised them, none rebuked him for it.”

Likewise, 1/43, Ali said, “Had he not done it, I would have.” Meaning collecting the Masahif, and burning the others.

The proof that Ibn Mas’ud gave in his Mus-haf and accepted Uthman’s, is in, al-Masahif, 1/69, he narrates with his chain from Fulfula al-Ja’fi who said, “I was one of those who went to Abdullah regarding the Masahif, so when we entered upon him one of us said, ‘We did not come here to visit you, but we came when this news reached us’, he responded, ‘Indeed the Qur’an was sent down to you Prophet from seven doors with seven different Ahruf (or Qira’ah, recitation style), the books that were before you were sent down from one door, with one reading style, and its meaning is one.”

Ponder upon that narration, it shows clearly that Ibn Mas’ud was submissive, and compare what is said by Ibn Mas’ud to his staunch opposition to it.

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said, “’Uthman collected the Mus-haf on one of the recitation styles that Allah’s Messnger peace and blessings be upon him, said could be read, because of the benefits of that.” (at-Turuq al-Hikmiyyah fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyyah, pg. 16)

Imam an-Naisaburi collected that Zaid bin Thabit said after the Qur’an was collected, “I saw the companions of Muhammad saying, ‘’Uthman did good, by Allah! ‘Uthman did good, by Allah!” (Ghara’ib al-Qur’an, 1/27)
The statement of Mus’ab has preceded, and ‘Ali said, “Do not say about ‘Uthman except what is good, for by Allah, he did not do this except after taking the acceptance of us (meaning the Sahaba).” (Fat-h al-Bari, 9/18)

Dr. Fahad ar-Rumi said, “It was not reported any opposition from the Sahaba for what ‘Uthman did, except what has been narrated from Ibn Mas’ud … his opposition was not due to any shortcoming or addition to the Mus-haf, rather it was because he was not included in that committee of collecting the Mus-haf, that’s why he said, ‘I will not give in my Mus-haf, for the one who has taken up this affair is a man who I was a believer when he was still under the control of a disbeliever.” (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 1/52-3, and Jam’ al-Qur’an al-Karim by ar-Rumi)

At-Tirmithi, 5/285, reports with a chain from az-Zuhri who said, “I was told my many of the Sahaba that, that is the reason Ibn Mas’ud disliked it.”

Ar-Rumi continues, “Abu Bakr al-Anbari defended the appointment of Zaid saying, “He would not have chosen Zaid, except that he, at that time, memorized and had firmer memorization of the Qur’an than Ibn Mas’ud… and this is not a disparagement of Ibn Mas’ud, because Zaid was firmer in memorization than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, but Zaid is better than neither of those two …therefore whatever was espoused by Ibn Mas’ud was due to anger, and that is proven since he realized after his anger left him the goodness of ‘Uthman’s choosing [Zaid], and those who were with him (‘Uthman) from the Companions of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, since he aligned with them and did not disagree with them anymore.” (Look to Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 1/53, and ar-Rumi, 1/32)

Ath-Thahabi affirmed what he said, saying, “It has been narrated that Ibn Mas’ud was in the end pleased and he followed ‘Uthman, and all praise is for Allah.” (Siyaru A’lam an-Nubalaa’, 1/488)
Likewise there is a similar statement from Ibn Kathir, look to Fadha’il al-Qur’an, pg. 20.

I would request, if you could number your allegations, so that it would make for easier discussion.

ben you said, where did Ibn Mas'ud say that it was because of his notes, I never said he did, I said that is a possible reason.; February 12, 2009 at 6:16 PM
ben malik said...: Muhammad, I will go through your post one at time and dismantle it as time permits. I will start off by the date that you provided for al-Zurqani's death,

the year 1367 Hijri,

Let's do the math. 1367 Hijri means 1367 years after Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina, which is dated at 623. So 623 + 1367 gives us the date of 1990!

So you want us to accept the statement of a Muslim writing in twentieth century who states that the reason why Ibn Masud was unwilling to hand over his copy of the Quran was because of his personal notes when the sources which Wood cited are considerably earlier and tell us that he refused to do so because he felt his recension was superior to that of Zaid's!!??

You can't be serious.

What makes this even more hilarious is that your very own source supports Wood's position since az-Zurqani says:

We shall remove their doubts, firstly, if Ibn Mas’ud’s speech, if it is even authentic, does not mean a disparagement of the entire Qur’an, but it shows that he thought of himself of being more worthy of this collecting being attributed to him, because he thought of himself more reliable than Zaid in this subject.

More dismantling of your references in due course as time permits.; February 12, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Muhammad said...: "Let's do the math. 1367 Hijri means 1367 years after Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina, which is dated at 623. So 623 + 1367 gives us the date of 1990!"

You are officially an idiot.

My, my, you have me laughing here. I don't like to resort to insults, but you really, really showed that you are nothing less than an idiot.

Ok, so 1430 is 2009.

1430 - 1367 = 63.

2009 - 63 = 1946

"So you want us to accept the statement of a Muslim writing in twentieth century who states that the reason why Ibn Masud was unwilling to hand over his copy of the Quran was because of his personal notes when the sources which Wood cited are considerably earlier and tell us that he refused to do so because he felt his recension was superior to that of Zaid's!!??"

Read what I said. I said he did not bring a narration, it is a mere possibility.; February 12, 2009 at 7:33 PM
ben malik said...: hehehe. You say I am the idiot for maiking an innocent mistake which doesn't refute my point in the least since it's still a 20th century source. Man, you're both desperate and pathetic.

I am glad that you are now slowly backing away from your bold assertions which was built on sand since I knew that if I pressed the point you would be exposed in no time. A lot more to come to sink your entire case which was built on nothing.; February 12, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Muhammad said...: Lol

I never backed down from anything.
You alleged something I never said, me clarifying that is not backing down from anything.

Keep trying to write, so it can be responded to.; February 12, 2009 at 8:01 PM
ben malik said...: Muhammad,

Either you are a liar or suffer from memory loss. Here is one example:

Another important fact, Ibn Mas'ud refused to give his Mus-haf to Uthman, or burn it, since he had his commentary written on the margins, and did not want to lose his notes.

You didn't say this was a possibility, but stated this as a fact. It is only when challenged that you backed off from your original point. So be more honest since you are only going to expose yourself. More to come.; February 12, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Azhan said...: This thing is answered here, please see the response!

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/09/ibn-masud-disagreement-uthman-quran.html; September 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Adil Kakar said...: Most of the sahabas knew Quran by heart, i donot know what have you people fallen into for going into these details about the word of God, had it been word of someone else it could have been clear by now like bible, Quran is still the same word by word and word and try changing it and you would realise somewhere some one from other part of the world would bring out the error. still its been in hearts of people, Allah alone has taken charge of it and you cannot change it. Follow whats in the Quran leave these debates, its not leading anywhere but pure waste of time and energies. Pray kneel down and bow to the creator instead.; June 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM