> Muslim Response Incomplete Quran ? Referencing to as-Suyuti

[Assad]

Some Anti-Islam missionaries has use the references of a highly reverted commenter of Islam As-Suyuti to claim that Quran is incomplete. This claim like any other claim is totally baseless and absurd.

They quote this:

"as-Suyuti one of the most famous and revered commentators on the Quran, quotes Ibn Umar al-Khattab as saying "Let no one say he has acquired all of the Quran for how does he know he has all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say 'I have what is available' "
(As-Suyuti, Itquan, part 3 page 72)"


And say that according to as-Suyuti Quran is incomplete and imperfect. The truth is that their claim is totally baseless as we will see.

It follows that anything that comes only from Kitab al-Masahif must be held in suspension until corroborated by an independent, reliable source or declared authentic by one of the competent authorities, or adduced by them.

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).

This reference to the Itqan is untraceable as no edition of it is in less than two volumes to my knowledge.

The above refers to a famous saying of Ibn `Umar, once again deceptively/ignorantly mistranslated so as to mislead readers to think it means other than its actual meaning.
The words used by Ibn `Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" above were -- I am quoting from memory -- respectively "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated).

The actual meaning of Ibn `Umar's words is:

"Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Qur'an [= its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]."


Ibn `Umar was famous for his strictness in refraining from interpreting the Qur'an, even criticizing Ibn `Abbas's interpretive zeal in the beginning, then accepting its authority. He was not referring to the collection of the Qur'an! But only to the ethics of the exegete, in the same line as Ibn `Abbas's saying narrated by al-Tabari and cited by al-Suyuti and al-Zarkashi: "There are ambiguous verses in the Qur'an which no one knows besides Allah. Whoever claims that he knows them, is a liar."


So, Quran is complete, perfect, error free and this is proven in every way.

[salman]

Wa'alaykum As-Salam

Jazak Allah khayr for sharing bro but let's give credit where credit is due, the above has taken from Shaykh GF Haddad's article.

[Assad]

Bro, I really dunno from where did I got this from :D It was some small article or infact a paragraph taken from some big article. I'll look for this in history record of browser right now.

bro. can you pls post that link or article which contain complete rebuttal ?

[salman]

^bro, I referenced Dr. GF Haddad's explanation/refutation in this article; so, you can check it out there, insha'Allah.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Acid

- Some Anti-Islam missionaries has use the references of a highly reverted commenter of Islam As-Suyuti to claim that Quran is incomplete. This claim like any other claim is totally baseless and absurd. They quote this: "as-Suyuti one of the most famous and revered commentators on the Quran, quotes Ibn Umar al-Khattab as saying "Let no one say he has acquired all of the Quran for how does he know he has all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say 'I have what is available' "
(As-Suyuti, Itquan, part 3 page 72)"

And say that according to as-Suyuti Quran is incomplete and imperfect. The truth is that their claim is totally baseless as we will see. It follows that anything that comes only from Kitab al-Masahif must be held in suspension until corroborated by an independent, reliable source or declared authentic by one of the competent authorities, or adduced by them. It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524). This reference to the Itqan is untraceable as no edition of it is in less than two volumes to my knowledge.

The above refers to a famous saying of Ibn `Umar, once again deceptively/ignorantly mistranslated so as to mislead readers to think it means other than its actual meaning. The words used by Ibn `Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" above were -- I am quoting from memory -- respectively "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated).

The actual meaning of Ibn `Umar's words is: "Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Qur'an [= its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]."

Ibn `Umar was famous for his strictness in refraining from interpreting the Qur'an, even criticizing Ibn `Abbas's interpretive zeal in the beginning, then accepting its authority. He was not referring to the collection of the Qur'an! But only to the ethics of the exegete, in the same line as Ibn `Abbas's saying narrated by al-Tabari and cited by al-Suyuti and al-Zarkashi: "There are ambiguous verses in the Qur'an which no one knows besides Allah. Whoever claims that he knows them, is a liar."

So, Quran is complete, perfect, error free and this is proven in every way.

Some points.

I find it profoundly sad that you say 'anti-Islam' because someone asks a question and that seem more like paranoia that openness and often it seems you have an irrational 'fear' of the truth emerging. If I take the same view then looking through this discussion board it is clearly anti-Christian.

It seem to me that you have made an interpretation, you may say its based on this or that authority but those themselves are interpretations. If your interpretations is correct it must mean that that any piece of the Koran may mean many different things because we have not found them all yet.

Even so one cannot prove a thing to be perfect by finding an interpretation that is convenient to that view. Neither does an interpretation show the Koran to be complete - there is no way to do that. If there is tell me the logical method and if it is logical it must work for every one for all time and the possibility of not believing then become impossible.

[Assad]

Well what you actually are doing is that you make your interpretation, consider them as true and than to any other interpretation and any other fact you say that " this is subject to different interpretations". While your interpretation which is based on no evidence is really your desire to make something up. You are interpreting something which doesnt exist but you still want to jump up to your conclusion. It's just like If a text read "The ball is yellow" and you (SilverLJ) interpret it as "this car is purple" . But note that the original next "the ball is yellow" doesnt contain the word car or purple but you are only insisting to interpret it that way. Same way you are saying that Quran is incomplete while the text reads that "no body should say that he has 100% learned the Quran (RECITATION) perfectly" . So your interpretation is completely non-sense.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Even so one cannot prove a thing to be perfect by finding an interpretation that is convenient to that view. Neither does an interpretation show the Koran to be complete - there is no way to do that.

This is just your saying, the fact is that you are saying this because you are unable to prove anything by your absurd interpretations. On other hand there are various facts, events, historical records, and science to Quran which perfectly shows that Quran is complete and perfect. So stop this "interpretation game" it's old and boring. The reason you feel unable to prove anything is as I said that you and your interpretation fails every logical standard. It's not plausible and solely based on your persuasive evidence.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

If there is tell me the logical method and if it is logical it must work for every one for all time and the possibility of not believing then become impossible.

The historical records and Science of Quran ( Uloom ul Quran ) provides completely scientific and reliable and infact perfect evidence which is believable for all. I am sure bro Salman or someone would provide you details here as I consider my time too valuable to be wasted in your interpretation games. But we will move once you open your mind to logic and embrace sanity.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I find it profoundly sad that you say 'anti-Islam' because someone asks a question and that seem more like paranoia that openness and often it seems you have an irrational 'fear' of the truth emerging. If I take the same view then looking through this discussion board it is clearly anti-Christian.

Well that's just your interpretation and not mine .. :)

[salman]

^ Jazak Allah khayr bro for a good response. I don't think I've much to add.

@Silver

let's not assume things and put words in our mouths, this is straw man fallacy. We're open to people's criticism of Islaam and look forward to clarifying them. You may like it or may not; the choice is yours. However, it does depend how people approach ask questions.

You may would like to explain how correcting the distortion of actual text by missionaries is our own interpretation? You're a professor, we expect more unbaised response.

Even so one cannot prove a thing to be perfect by finding an interpretation that is convenient to that view.

like i said above explain how it is an our own "convenient" interpretation?

Neither does an interpretation show the Koran to be complete - there is no way to do that.

so, our "interpretation" doesn't show that the Qur'aan is preserved; however, your copy paste distorted version of the actual text shows that Qur'an is not preserved? What's up with academic dishonesty and double standards?

If there is tell me the logical method and if it is logical it must work for every one for all time and the possibility of not believing then become impossible.

all humans will never agree on one thing even if the truth is clear to them. The evidences are clear to prove the preservation of the Qur'aan; however, the choice is yours: to accept or deny.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

^ Jazak Allah khayr bro for a good response. I don't think I've much to add. Let's not assume things and put words in our mouths, this is straw man fallacy. We're open to people's criticism of Islam and look forward to clarifying them. You may like it or may not; the choice is yours. However, it does depend how people approach ask questions.

You may would like to explain how correcting the distortion of actual text by missionaries is our own interpretation? You're a professor, we expect more unbaised response.

Comment - I think if you look through the posts you will see who talked about missionaries and it was not me who made such a claim.

so, our "interpretation" doesn't show that the Qur'aan is preserved; however, your copy paste distorted version of the actual text shows that Qur'an is not preserved? What's up with academic dishonesty and double standards?

I cannot see I am being dishonest here. If I state your argument for preservation of a perfect, error free text it appears to be "someone said it existed', an appeal to authority not to reasons. No original copy exists, that is all I said.

all humans will never agree on one thing even if the truth is clear to them. The evidences are clear to prove the preservation of the Qur'aan; however, the choice is yours: to accept or deny.

Let me be clear, I do not view the text of the Quran as worthless, far from it, and I have read it a numbers of times. However, I find it impossible to accept that it is as totally unblemished as you say it is and I do not think any rational person could come to a different conclusion looking at the evidence.

My I thank you for the discussion.

[SilverLJ]

Acid - Well what you actually are doing is that you make your interpretation, consider them as true and than to any other interpretation and any other fact you say that " this is subject to different interpretations". While your interpretation which is based on no evidence is really your desire to make something up. You are interpreting something which doesn't exist but you still want to jump up to your conclusion. It's just like If a text read "The ball is yellow" and you (SilverLJ) interpret it as "this car is purple" . But note that the original next "the ball is yellow" doesnt contain the word car or purple but you are only insisting to interpret it that way. Same way you are saying that Quran is incomplete while the text reads that "no body should say that he has 100% learned the Quran (RECITATION) perfectly" . So your interpretation is completely non-sense.

Comment - I like you or anyone can make an interpretation based on the information I have. I agree that any interpretation is possible and we cannot avoid our own bias although we can be aware of it - that applies to you as well as to me.

Quote:Originally Posted by SilverLJ. Even so one cannot prove a thing to be perfect by finding an interpretation that is convenient to that view. Neither does an interpretation show the Koran to be complete - there is no way to do that.

This is just your saying, the fact is that you are saying this because you are unable to prove anything by your absurd interpretations. On other hand there are various facts, events, historical records, and science to Quran which perfectly shows that Quran is complete and perfect. So stop this "interpretation game" it's old and boring. The reason you feel unable to prove anything is as I said that you and your interpretation fails every logical standard. It's not plausible and solely based on your persuasive evidence.

Comment - I have heard this argument before, people who ask questions or offer an alternative view are simply wrong or they are illogical or misread the facts. Fortunately, in this board the standards are much higher and you don't resort to abuse. I think I understand the notion of proof quite well and the nature of arguments and as far a is possible I have been honest in those respects.

Quote:Originally Posted by SilverLJ. If there is tell me the logical method and if it is logical it must work for every one for all time and the possibility of not believing then become impossible.

The historical records and Science of Quran (Uloom ul Quran) provides completely scientific and reliable and in fact perfect evidence which is believable for all. I am sure bro Salman or someone would provide you details here as I consider my time too valuable to be wasted in your interpretation games. But we will move once you open your mind to logic and embrace sanity.

Comment - it is a function of proof that it is true for you, true for me, true now and true forever. I also understand that one can find many way of seeking proof: a hypothesis, set a standard, use falsification, proof by the unexpected, proof by example and so on. SO I think I have at least a glimmer of knowledge in this area. But for now we shall agree to differ as my time is also valuable.


Quote: Originally Posted by SilverLJ: I find it profoundly sad that you say 'anti-Islam' because someone asks a question and that seem more like paranoia that openness and often it seems you have an irrational 'fear' of the truth emerging. If I take the same view then looking through this discussion board it is clearly anti-Christian.
Well that's just your interpretation and not mine .. :)

Comment - yes it my view on what we have been discussing. Thank you for your remarks as they have been helpful and often illuminating.

[salman]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Comment - I think if you look through the posts you will see who talked about missionaries and it was not me who made such a claim.

when did I say or even imply that you talked about missionaries? I've dealt with this quote over an year ago and i know where it came from. Let's read what I actually said:

Originally Posted by salman

You may would like to explain how correcting the distortion of actual text by missionaries [as they're the original source of your copy paste] is our own interpretation? You're a professor, we expect more unbiased response.

you posted this quote in another thread and originally copied from a Christian Missionary website, not that we've any problem. We don't care where you got it from but we're simply pointing it out where it came from.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I cannot see I am being dishonest here. If I state your argument for preservation of a perfect, error free text it appears to be "someone said it existed', an appeal to authority not to reasons. No original copy exists, that is all I said.

may I ask, how we're appealing to an authority? Dr. GF Haddad simply posted the correct version of the text and explained it within the context of other texts. Appealing to authentic historical accounts is not appealing to an authroity. I expect you to know this, the least. I've looked through Imaam Suyuti's (rahimahullah) Al-Itqan fee Ulum al-Qur'an and I couldn't find that quote of yours. So, how exactly are we appealing to an authority?

Suppose, we're appealing to an authority and his interpretation but you're not because answering-islam is perfect in all aspects of reasoning, right? It is academic dishonesty when you don't present the whole picture to your readers and distort the actual text. You should have at least tried to compare that quote with the actual Arabic text. Moreover, you pick and choose and this is the problem. Something A is logically correct for you but it is not for us.