debate p3

 This is a continuation of our response in its first and second parts to the chicks of defensive theology in their clips. We will now respond, God willing, to their third clip

. First: The response to Al-Munsir’s citing of the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forgetting and the Companions’ (may Allah be pleased with them) forgetting verses of the Qur’an to deny the continuous transmission of the Qur’an .

I say: His citing of the hadith about the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forgetting does not deny the continuous transmission of the Qur’an, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is a human being who is liable to forget, just as the rest of humanity is liable to do. However, this forgetfulness that befalls him in some rulings and some verses is regulated by the fact that it is temporary, so he remembers it through someone from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who reminds him, or by revelation from Allah, the Almighty and Majestic.

We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Facing the Qiblah Wherever it is
((401 - Uthman narrated to us, he said: Jarir narrated to us, on the authority of Mansur, on the authority of Ibrahim, on the authority of Alqamah, he said: Abdullah, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said - Ibrahim said: I do not know whether he added or subtracted - and when he finished the prayer, it was said to him: O Messenger of God, did something happen in the prayer? He said: “And what is that?” They said: You prayed such and such, so he repeated His feet, and he faced the Qiblah, and prostrated twice, then he gave the salutation. When he turned his face towards us, he said: “If anything happened during the prayer, I would have informed you of it, but I am only a human being like you. I forget as you forget, so if I forget, remind me. And if any one of you is in doubt about his prayer, let him seek out what is correct and complete it accordingly, then let him give the salutation.” Then he prostrates twice.”

We read from Fath al-Bari in the explanation of Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Hajar, may
God have mercy on him, Part Nine, Book of Prayer: “Al-Ismaili said : The Prophet’s forgetfulness of something from the Qur’an is of two types. One of them is his forgetfulness of what he remembers shortly after, and this is based on human nature, and this is indicated by his statement, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, in the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud regarding forgetfulness: ‘I only A human being like you forgets as you forget. The second is that Allah removes it from his heart due to the will to abrogate his recitation, and this is what is referred to by the exception in the Most High’s statement: “We will cause you to recite, and you will not forget, except what Allah wills.” He said: As for the first part, it is an accident that quickly disappears, due to the apparent meaning of the Most High’s statement: “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” As for the second, So it is included in the words of the Most High: “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten” according to the reading of those who read it with a damma at the beginning without a hamza. I said: The explanation of this reading and the explanation of those who read it have already been presented in the interpretation of Al-Baqarah. And in the hadith there is evidence for those who permit forgetfulness on the part of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, in what is not the way of conveying it absolutely, and likewise in what is the way of conveying it.But on two conditions, one of them is that after he delivers it, and the other is that he does not continue to forget it, but rather he remembers it either by himself or by someone else. Is this conditional on immediate action? There are two opinions. As for before delivering it, it is not permissible for him to forget it at all. Some of the fundamentalists and some of the Sufis claimed that it is not He forgets at all, but his form only occurs in order to make it Sunnah. Iyad said: None of the scholars of Usuliyyah said this except Abu al-Muzaffar al-Isfarayini, and it is a weak statement.

We read from al-Minhaaj in the explanation of Sahih Muslim by Imam al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, Part Six, Book of the Prayer of Travelers:
((His statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “I forgot it” is evidence of the permissibility of forgetfulness on his part, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in what he conveyed to the Ummah, and it has been mentioned previously in the chapter on prostration. Forgetfulness: Discussing what is permissible of forgetfulness on the part of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and what is not permissible. Al-Qadi ‘Iyad, may Allaah have mercy on him, said: The majority of scholars agree that forgetfulness on the part of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is permissible initially in matters that are not conveyed through transmission. They differed regarding matters that are conveyed through transmission and teaching. However, those who permitted it said that it is not permissible for him to be admitted, rather he must remember it or mention it. They differed as to whether… Among the conditions for that is the immediacy or is it valid with delay before his death, may God bless him and grant him peace? He said: As for forgetting what he conveyed in this hadith, it is permissible. He said: And the explanation of his forgetfulness in prayer has been previously mentioned. He said: And some of the Sufis and their followers said: It is not permissible for him to forget at all in anything, and only its form occurs from him, and nothing else. And this is a contradiction that is rejected, and no one who is followed has said this except the teacher. Abu al-Dhafar al-Isfarayini is one of our sheikhs, for he leaned towards it and preferred it, and it is weak and contradictory. His statement, may God bless him and grant him peace,

is that the hadith that he cited does not indicate, neither directly nor indirectly, that the Qur’an is not mutawatir, rather it is an argument for those who say that it is mutawatir and that it is memorized in the hearts, because the Companions, may God be pleased with them, memorized the verses of the Qur’an, and their memorization spread among the nation. If one person forgot, everyone would remind him, and this is also the case today, even in the prayer of those who have memorized the Qur’an. If the imam makes a mistake, the one being led in prayer corrects him, and this is exactly what happened to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, for he did not know that he had forgotten the verse except when he heard it from Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’rur, may God be pleased with him, so how would it be if Bishr knew it, unless he had heard it from the mouth of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, previously .

We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an, Chapter on Forgetting the Qur’an
((5038 - Ahmad ibn Abi Raja’ narrated to us, Abu Usamah narrated to us, on the authority of Hisham ibn Urwah, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Aishah, she said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, heard a man reciting a surah at night, so he said: “May Allah have mercy on him, he has reminded me of such and such a verse that I had forgotten from such and such a surah.”A:

Forgetting here does not undermine the validity of the chain of transmission, because when the verse was revealed, the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, taught it to a group of his companions, and they, in turn, taught it to their students. If the teacher forgot, the other teachers, his students, and the students of others would remind him. The spread of its memorization among the Muslims is the best evidence of its being transmitted, so it does not matter if one companion forgets and the others remind him, since the persistence of learning and its spread among a group prevents the occurrence of disunity from the hearts of the entire nation .

We read from Al-Murshid Al-Wajeez by Abu Shamah, Part One, Chapter One:

((Whenever something of the Qur’an was revealed, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, ordered it to be written down and would say in the individual verses: “Put this in such-and-such Surah,” and he would present it to Gabriel in the month of Ramadan every year, and he presented it to him twice in the year of his death. Likewise, Gabriel would present it to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, every year once, and he presented it to him twice in the year of his death. A group of his companions memorized it during his lifetime, and every part of it was memorized by a large group, the least of whom reached the level of mutawatir, and he permitted them to recite it in seven letters as an extension for them ))

in Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d, Part Six

((Hafs bin ‘Umar Al-Hawdhi informed us, he said: Hammad bin Zaid told us, he said: ‘Ata’ told us. Ibn al-Sa'ib said: Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami said: “ We took this Qur’an from a people who told us that when they learned ten verses, they would not move on to the next ten until they knew what was in them . So we would learn the Qur’an and act upon it. And after us, the Qur’an will be inherited by a people who will drink it as they drink water, not…” It goes beyond their collarbones, rather it does not go beyond here, and he placed his hand on the throat.

We read from Al-Burhan fi Ulum Al-Quran by Al-Zarkashi, may God have mercy on him, Part One, Type Twenty-Nine:
((Chapter: On the continuous recitation of the Qur’an after learning it.

And let him persist in reciting it after learning it. God Almighty said, praising the one whose habit is to recite the verses of God: {They recite the verses of God during the hours of the night} and He called it remembrance and threatened the one who turns away from it and the one who learns it then forgets it. And in The two Sahihs: “Recite the Qur’an together, for by Him in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, it is more likely to slip away than a camel from its tether. And He said, ‘How evil it is for one of them to say, “I have forgotten such and such a verse.” Rather, he has forgotten. And remember the Qur’an, for it is more likely to slip away from the hearts of men than a camel from its tether.” And his citing Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him )

as evidence and his forgetting it does not affect anything, since the students of Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) learned the Qur’an from him by continuous transmission. It was narrated in the Virtues of the Qur’an by Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Salam, in the chapter on the virtue of the Qur’an, learning it, and teaching it to people

: “He told us: Abu Ubaid said: Umar ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Abbar told us, on the authority of al-A’mash, who said:An Arab passed by Abdullah bin Masoud while he was teaching the Qur’an to some people, or he said: There were some people with him who were learning the Qur’an. He said: What are these people doing? Ibn Mas`ud said: “They divide the inheritance of Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace. ”

As for the issue of the two Mu`awwidhat, I have answered it here and it is the best evidence of Ibn Mas`ud’s, may God be pleased with him, retreating and the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, reminding him of the Qur’anic Mu`awwidhat.

https://mohammedsunni.blogspot.com/2...AA%D9%8A%D9%86

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00009144010733

As for his citing what Ibn Hazm, may God have mercy on him, mentioned in Al-Muhalla, Al-Munsir did not transmit what Ibn Hazm, may God have mercy on him, mentioned before the quote that Al-Munsir mentioned because it undermines his statement based on the fact that forgetfulness invalidates the mutawatir, as it only invalidates the credibility of Al-Munsir.
We read from Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, Part Nine, Book of Marriage, Chapter on the Issue of It is Not Permissible for a Woman Marriage without the permission of her guardian:
((Then if it is true that Al-Zuhri denied it, and that Sulayman bin Musa forgot it -: We have narrated from the path of Muslim bin Al-Hajjaj, from Ibn Numayr, who said: Abdah and Abu Mu’awiyah told me, from Hisham bin Urwah, from his father, from Aisha, the mother of the believers - may God be pleased with her - who said, “The Prophet - may God bless him and his family and grant them peace - used to hear A man was reciting in the mosque and he said - may God have mercy on him - “He reminded me of a verse that I had forgotten.”

Narrated to us Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Al-Jasour, narrated to us Wahb bin Maysarah, narrated to us Ibn Wadhah, narrated to us Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah, narrated to us Wakee’, from Sufyan, from Salamah bin Kuhayl, from Dhirr bin Abdullah Al-Marhabi, from Saeed bin Abdul Rahman bin Abza, from his father: “ The Prophet - may God bless him and his family and grant them peace - prayed the dawn prayer and neglected a verse. When he prayed, he said: Is Ubayy ibn Ka'b among the people? Ubayy ibn Ka'b said to him: O Messenger of Allah, have you forgotten such and such a verse, or has it been abrogated? He - may Allah bless him and

grant him peace - said: Rather, I forgot it. Abu Muhammad said: If it is authentic that the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - forgot a verse of the Quran, then who is Al-Zuhri, who is Sulayman, and who is Yahya that he does not forget? Allah the Almighty said: {And We had already made a covenant with Adam before, but he forgot} [Taha: 115]. But

Ibn Jurayj is trustworthy, so if he narrates to us on the authority of Sulayman ibn Musa - and he is trustworthy - that he informed him on the authority of Al-Zuhri with a chain of transmission, then the proof has been established with it, whether they forgot it after they conveyed it and narrated it, or they did not forget it.

Abu Hurairah forgot the hadith of “There is no contagion.”

And Al-Hasan forgot the hadith of “Whoever kills his slave.”

Abu Muhammad, the client of Ibn Abbas, forgot the hadith of Takbir after the prayer after they had narrated it. So what happened? No one would object to this except an ignorant person, or someone who defends the truth with falsehood. We do not know in which part of the Qur’an, or in which part of the Sunnah, or in which part of the ruling of reason they found it? Whoever narrates a hadith and then forgets it, the ruling on that hadith is invalid. They are nothing but making a false claim without proof. So look at how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) asked Ubayy ibn Ka’b (may Allaah be pleased with him), because he knew that he had memorised the Qur’an, and this is an example of mutawatir .

So reminding the imam or teacher by the follower or student is the result of teaching the ummah to read, so how can this be used as evidence to invalidate mutawatir, when it is an example of mutawatir ?

Second: The response to his fabrication against Sheikh Muhammad Abduh.

Al-Munsir quoted from the book “The Complete Works of Sheikh Muhammad Abduh” Part Three, Page 215, a text in which Sheikh Muhammad Abduh responded to one of the scholars of India asking for a license for something that he did not narrate to him. The Sheikh responded to him and told him that he could not do that because there is no benefit to him from a chain of transmission whose men and their accuracy are not known. Whoever looks at his words will know that what is meant by them is:

1. Sheikh Muhammad Abduh’s lack of knowledge of the men of the chain of transmission and not a complete rejection of the chains of transmission

. 2. Sheikh Muhammad Abduh’s words are only in the context of speaking about licenses specific to the science of jurisprudence and not the science of readings. The Sheikh’s words in this chapter are all about imitation and its proof. The image below explains this. Note





that even if we assume that Sheikh Muhammad Abduh intended what the forger Al-Munsir intended, Sheikh Muhammad Abduh has many legal observations that the people of knowledge have taken against him, and he belonged to the school of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, and that is a school that has nothing to do with the sound methodology of the people of the Sunnah and the community!!!

Third: The response to his argument based on a controversial issue to deny the continuous transmission of the Qur’an, while demonstrating his ignorance of the difference between the continuous transmission of the Qur’an and the continuous transmission of all the chains of transmission of each of the ten readings .

The truth is that this preacher has reached an indescribable level of ignorance, as what is clear from his words on this particular point is his ignorance of knowing the reality of the situation and the difference between saying that the Qur’an is continuous and the continuous transmission of the chain of transmission of each of the ten readings from the reciter to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace!! Therefore, we say:

1. Saying that the Qur’an is continuous does not necessitate saying that the chain of transmission of each of the ten readings from the reciter to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, is continuous, as we find - as some scholars have said - that the chains of transmission of some readings are continuous to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and some are not continuous .

We read from Al-Murshid Al-Wajeez by Abu Shamah, Part One, Chapter One:

((Whenever something of the Qur’an was revealed, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, would order it to be written down and would say in the individual verses: “Put this in such-and-such Surah,” and he would present it to Gabriel in the month of Ramadan every year, and he presented it to him twice in the year of his death. Likewise, Gabriel presented it to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, every year once, and he presented it to him twice in the year of his death. A group of his companions memorized it during his lifetime, and every part of it was memorized by a large group, the least of whom reached the level of tawatur, and he permitted them to recite it in seven letters as an extension for them.) )

We read from Al-Burhan fi Ulum Al-Qur’an by Al-Zarkashi, Part One, Type Thirteen:
((Chapter: On the statement of those who memorized the Qur’an from the Companions during the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him

and grant him peace. A group of the Companions memorized it during his lifetime, and every part of it was memorized by a large group, the least of whom reached the level of mutawatir transmission. There are confirmed reports on this in Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Mustadrak, and others from the hadith of Ibn Abbas, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, A time would come upon him while the surahs with a number of verses would be revealed to him. Whenever something was revealed to him, he would call some of those who used to write and say, “Put these verses in the surah in which such and such is mentioned.” At-Tirmidhi said, “This is a good hadith.” Al-Hakim said, “It is authentic according to the conditions of the two sheikhs, but they did not include it.”

We read from the interpretation of Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him, the first part, the chapter on how to recite the Book of God Almighty:
“Abu Al-Hasan provided evidence for that.” For the Shafi’i school of thought, he said: The problem in this issue has been removed by what was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah, who said: Zayd ibn al-Hubab told us, who said: Musa ibn Ali ibn Rabah told us, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Uqbah ibn Amir, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Learn the Qur’an, sing it, and write it down, for by the One in Whose hand is my soul, it is more capable of disclosing it than…” "The labor pains of the mind." Our scholars said: Even if the chain of transmission of this hadith is authentic, it is refuted by what is known with certainty and certainty about the recitation of the Qur’an, which has reached us in a continuous manner from all the sheikhs, generation after generation, up to the noble era of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and in which there is no grammatical irregularity or melody, despite the large number of those who delve deeply into the points of articulation of letters, and into lengthening, assimilation, idhhar, and other than that. How to read. Then, in Tarji` and Tatrib there is the hamzah of what is not hamzah and the elongation of what is not elongated. So the elongation of one alif into alifs and one waw into waws and the similarity of one is doubtful, so that leads to an increase in the Qur’an and that is forbidden. And if that coincides with the position of a stress and a hamzah, they make it stresses and hamzas, and the stress wherever it occurs from the letters is only one hamzah for nothing. Either extended or shortened.

We read from the collection of fatwas of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, the seventh part, the book of the Great Faith:
(((Fifth): If it is assumed that they said this, then they are individuals whose transmission does not establish continuous transmission. One of the conditions of continuous transmission is the equality of the two parties and the middle. Where is the continuous transmission that existed from all the Arabs before the revelation of the Qur’an? They did not know any meaning for faith other than belief. If it is said: This casts doubt on knowledge. In the language before the revelation of the Qur’an; it was said: So be it. And we do not need, with the Messenger’s explanation of what Allah sent him with from the Qur’an, to know the language before the revelation of the Qur’an. The Qur’an was revealed in the language of Quraysh, and those who were addressed by it were Arabs, and they understood what was intended by it, and they were the Companions. Then the Companions conveyed the wording of the Qur’an. Its meaning is to the followers until it reached us, so we no longer have any need for that language to be transmitted to us in any way other than through the transmission of the Qur’an. However, when the Qur’an was transmitted in wording and meaning and we knew that it was revealed in their language; We know that in their language there were the words heaven, earth, night, day, sun, moon, and the like, according to their meaning in the Qur’an. Otherwise, if we were tasked with transmitting continuously the individual instances of these words from other than the Qur’an, we would not have been able to do so. 2. There are two schools of thought regarding the ten readings being transmitted




by the later scholars, and each of the supporters of the two schools of thought attributed his statement to the earlier scholars. The one who is ignorant of the latter is that he does not know that this is a controversial issue. This controversy was mentioned by Dr. Abdul Aziz Qari in his book Hadith al-Ahruf al-Sab’ah,

where he said on page 127:


The reason for the transmission of the ten readings by Dr. Abdul Aziz Qari, despite the lack of transmission of all their chains of transmission, is that each of the ten readers committed to recording what each of their countries reads. The matter was mutawatir among them as he mentioned on page 121


, and therefore the difference among the later scholars is based on two doctrines:

The first: Not every reading of the ten readings is mutawatir with widespread chains of transmission, rather it is not necessary for the reading to be mutawatir with chains of transmission in order for it to be acceptable, rather the authenticity of the chain of transmission and its agreement with the Uthmanic script and Arabic are sufficient, even in one way, and whenever one of the three conditions is violated, it becomes anomalous or weak .

We read from Al-Ibanah by Imam Makki bin Abi Talib, may God have mercy on him, the chapter on why the readers who were chosen for the reading were made seven?
((Ibn Jubayr Al-Muqri, who was before Ibn Mujahid, wrote a book on the readings, and called it: The Book of the Eight, and he added Yaqub Al-Hadrami to these seven. This is a broad chapter.

Rather, the principle that is relied upon in this is: that what has a sound chain of transmission, and its face is correct in Arabic, and its wording agrees with the script of the Mushaf, is from the seven that were specified, even if it was narrated by seventy thousand, separately or together. This is the principle upon which the acceptance of the readings from seven or seven thousand was built, so know it and build upon it ))

Abu Shamah, may God have mercy on him, agreed with him in Al-Murshid Al-Wajeez, Part One, Chapter Five:
((I said: This Sunnah that he referred to is what was proven from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, explicitly, that he read it and gave permission for it, according to what was authentically reported from him: “The Qur’an was revealed in seven letters.” For this reason, differences in reading increased during his time, may God bless him and grant him peace, and after him until the copies of the Qur’an were written, with the agreement of the Companions in Madinah on that, and they were sent to the regions and they were ordered to follow it and leave what was other than it, so the people took it, and they left from those readings everything that contradicted it, and they kept what agreed with it explicitly [67 D] like the reading of {As-Sirat} with a sad (2), and possibly like the reading of {Malik} with an alif (3); because the copies of the Qur’an agreed to write “Malik” in them without an alif, so it is possible that he meant what was deleted from “Ar-Rahman” and “Ishmael” and “Isaac” and others. That.

And what leads to believing that is the confirmation of that reading through the correct transmission from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and there is no doubt about it being a continuous chain of transmission, rather the correct individual narrations are sufficient with the prevalence, and the agreement with the script of the Mushaf, meaning that it is not contradicted by the absence of those who deny it in terms of transmission and direction from the linguistic point of view. So every reading that is supported by the script of the Mushaf with the correct transmission in it and its coming in the eloquent language of the Arabs, then it is a correct and considered reading.

If these three pillars are missing, then that reading is called anomalous and weak. This was indicated by the words of the earlier imams, and Sheikh Al-Muqri Abu Muhammad Makki bin Abi Talib Al-Qayrawani stated it in a separate book (1) that he composed on the meanings of the seven readings and ordered it to be attached to “The Book of Revelation of the Faces of the Readings” from his writings, and it was mentioned previously in what we quoted from his words in the fourth chapter before this chapter (2).

And our Sheikh Abu Al-Hasan, may Allah have mercy on him, also mentioned it in his book “Jamal Al-Qurra” in the chapter on the levels of the principles and the strange chapters, and he said: [68 and]

Some people chose the reading of Asim and Nafi’ in what they agreed upon and said: The reading of these two imams is the most authentic reading in terms of chain of transmission and the most eloquent in Arabic, and after them in eloquence is the reading of Abu Amr and Al-Kisa’i.

“ If the letter combines its strength in Arabic, its agreement with the Mushaf, and the consensus of the general public on it, then it is the chosen one according to most of them. And if they say: the reading of the general public, then they mean what the people of Medina and Kufa agreed upon. For them, it is a strong reason that necessitates the choice. And perhaps they chose what the people of the two sanctuaries agreed upon, and they also called it the general public.” (3)

Ibn al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him, said in al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Introduction:

“Then the reciters after those mentioned increased in number and dispersed in the lands and spread out, and after them came nations after nations, their classes were known, and their characteristics differed. Among them were those who mastered recitation and were famous for narration and knowledge, and among them were those who limited themselves to one of these descriptions, and because of that, differences increased among them, and control decreased, and the breach widened, and falsehood almost became confused with the truth. So the great scholars of the nation and the leaders of the imams rose up, and they exaggerated in their ijtihad and clarified the intended truth, and they collected the letters and readings, and attributed the aspects and narrations, and distinguished between the famous and the anomalous, and the correct and the unique, with principles that they established. And the pillars they separated, and here we point to them and rely on them as they relied on them, so we say:

Every reading that agrees with Arabic, even in one way, and agrees with one of the Ottoman copies of the Qur’an, even if only possibly, and its chain of transmission is sound, is the correct reading that cannot be rejected or denied. Rather, it is one of the seven letters in which the Qur’an was revealed and people must accept it, whether it is from the seven imams, or from the ten, or from other accepted imams. Whenever one of these three pillars is missing, it is called weak, anomalous, or invalid, whether it is from the seven or from someone greater than them. This is what is correct according to the imams of investigation from the early Muslims and later Muslims . Imam al-Hafiz Abu Amr Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Dani stated this explicitly, and Imam Abu Muhammad Makki ibn Abi Talib stated it in more than one place, as did Imam Abu al-Abbas Ahmad ibn Ammar al-Mahdawi. Imam al-Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Abd al-Rahman ibn Ismail, known as Abu Shamah, verified it, and it is the doctrine of the early Muslims, from which no one is known to have disagreed. ))

He also said in Al-Nashr, Part One, Introduction:
(((And our saying) and its chain of transmission is authentic, we mean by it that the just and precise narrator narrates that reading from someone like him so and so until it ends, and it is with that well-known among the imams of this matter who are precise about it and is not considered by them to be a mistake or something that some of them have deviated from. Some of the later scholars have stipulated that it be mutawatir in this. The pillar, and he was not satisfied with the authenticity of the chain of transmission, and he claimed that the Qur’an is not proven except by continuous transmission, and that what came as a single transmission does not prove the Qur’an, and this is something that is not hidden in it, because if continuous transmission is proven, there is no need for the last two pillars of the script and other than it, because what was proven from the letters of disagreement is continuous transmission from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace. - It must be accepted and it is certain that it is the Qur’an, whether it agrees with the script or not. If we stipulate the mutawatir in every letter of the letters of disagreement, then many of the letters of disagreement that are proven from these seven imams and others will be negated. I used to lean towards this opinion before, but then its corruption and its agreement with the imams of the early and later generations became apparent. ))

And we read from the book “Discussions in the Sciences of the Qur’an” by Mana’ al-Qattan, in the chapter on the types of readings, their rulings and their controls:
(( Some scholars mentioned that the readings are: Mutawatir, Ahad, and Shadha. They made the Mutawatir seven, and the Ahad three that complete ten of them, then what is from the readings of the Companions, and what remains is Shadha. It was said: The ten are Mutawatir. It was said: The controls are relied upon in that, whether the reading is from the seven readings, or the ten, or other.Abu Shamah said in “Al-Murshid Al-Wajeez”: “One should not be deceived by every reading attributed to one of the seven and called authentic and that it was revealed thus unless it falls within that rule, and then no author is the only one to transmit it from someone else, and it is not specific to transmitting it from them, but if it is transmitted from other reciters, that does not make it invalid - because the reliance is on the collection of those descriptions and not on the one to whom it is attributed, because the reading attributed to each reciter from the seven and others is divided into that which is agreed upon and that which is anomalous, but these seven, due to their fame and the abundance of the authentic and agreed upon reading, the soul is inclined to what was transmitted from them over what is transmitted from others.”1

And the analogy with them in the rules of correct reading is as follows:

1- The reading must conform to Arabic in some way: whether it is more eloquent or more eloquent, because reading is a followed Sunnah that must be accepted and adopted by the chain of transmission, not by opinion.

2. And that the reading agrees with one of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an, even if it is a possibility: because the Companions, when writing the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an, made an effort in the writing according to what they knew of the languages ​​of reading. For example, they wrote “as-Sirat” in the verse of Allah the Almighty: {Guide us to the straight path} 2, with “sad” replaced by “seen” - and they changed from “seen” which is the original, so that the reading of “seen” would be “as-Sirat” and even if it differed from the writing in one way, it came to the known linguistic origin, so they are balanced, and the reading of “ishmaam

” is possible for that. What is meant by the possible agreement is what is like this, like the reading of {Malik Yawm al-Din} 1, because the word “Malik” was written in all the copies of the Qur’an by deleting the alif, so it is read as “Malik” and it agrees with the writing in fact, and it is read as “Malik” and it agrees with it in possibility, and so on in other examples.

An example of what agrees with the difference in the readings in terms of script: {تَعْلَمُونَ} with the letter ta’ and the letter ya’, and {يَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ} with the letter ya’ and the letter noon, and the like, which indicates that it is free of dots and diacritics in its deletion and its confirmation, indicating the great merit of the Companions - may Allah be pleased with them - in the science of spelling in particular, and their keen understanding in the confirmation of every science.

It is not a condition for the correct reading to be in agreement with all the copies of the Qur’an, and it is sufficient to agree with what is proven in some of them, such as the reading of Ibn ‘Amir: {وَبِ الظُّبِر وَبِ الكتابِ}2, by confirming the letter ba’ in both of them, as this is proven in the Shami Qur’an.

3- And that the reading be with a correct chain of transmission: because the reading is a followed Sunnah in which the soundness of transmission and the accuracy of narration are relied upon, and the people of Arabic often reject a reading from the readings because it deviates from analogy, or because of its weakness in the language, and the imams of the reciters do not care about their rejection at all.

These are the controls of correct reading. If the three pillars are met:

1- Conformity to Arabic. 2- The script of the Mushaf.

3- The authenticity of the chain of transmission, then it is the correct reading. Whenever one or more pillars are missing, it is called weak, irregular, or invalid .

Second: What some of the later scholars also said, that each of the ten readings is mutawatir, which is a condition for accepting the reading .

In response to Al-Munsir, the two schools of thought agreed on the statement of the authenticity of the seven readings, except that the first group did not stipulate mutawatir in every chain of transmission of every reading, and the second group went to the mutawatir of every reading of the seven readings.

We read from Al-Burhan fi Ulum Al-Quran by Al-Zarkashi, Part One, Type Twenty-Two:
(( The Shafi’i Sheikh said: It is a condition that what is recited be transmitted by continuous transmission from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as the Qur’an, and its transmission has become widespread in this regard, and the nation has accepted it, like these seven recitations, because what is considered in this is certainty and conviction based on what has been established and paved the way in the principles. So as for what is not found in it, except for… The ten. So, whoever is forbidden from reciting it is forbidden, not forbidden, out of dislike, in prayer and outside of prayer. And whoever is aware of the sources and meanings is forbidden from it, and whoever does not know that is obligated to do so. And it is obligatory upon whoever is able to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong to do so. And whoever transmitted it from the scholars transmitted it for benefits, some of which are related to the knowledge of Arabic, not reading it. This is the way of whoever His path was straightened, then he said: “The deviant reading is that which was transmitted as a Qur’an without continuous transmission and widespread acceptance from the Imams, as is included in Al-Muhtasib by Ibn Jinni and others.”

Then Al-Mansir maliciously deceived Dr. Abd Al-Ali, the responsible one, as he quoted from page 63 his words in detailing the words of the supporters of the second school of thought who say that the seven readings are continuous and that continuous transmission is a condition for accepting the reading, but he deceived and betrayed academic integrity, and his impudence reached a level that reached the level of filth, as:

1. He presented the words as an opinion of Dr. Abd Al-Ali, while the doctor was presenting the point of view of the supporters of the second school of thought and what is entailed by their words.

2. He concealed that the doctor opposed the supporters of this school of thought and said that the reading is valid with the sufficiency of the authenticity of the chain of transmission and the writing of the Qur’an and its agreement with the eloquent without the need for the recitation of the Qur’an in succession.

3. He concealed that the doctor presented the disagreement on the issue and the doctor was certain of the existence of one opinion and what is more amazing than this is that he made the doctor one of the supporters of the second opinion although he refuted their claims!!!!

4. Al-Mansir’s ignorance of what we mentioned previously which is the difference between the recitation of the Qur’an as a whole and the recitation of each of the ten recitations .









Then Al-Safaqi also falsified in his book Ghayth Al-Nafi’ in the Seven Recitations in the following ways:

1. He presented what Al-Safaqi transmitted from the school of thought of the fundamentalists regarding the condition of recitation of each recitation as if it were also the words of Al-Safaqi and concealed his response to the supporters of this school of thought .

We read from the book Ghayth al-Nafi’ fi al-Qira’at al-Sab’ al-Muqaddimah:
((The second: The doctrine of the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence, the jurists of the four schools of thought, and the modern reciters is that mutawatir is a condition for the validity of the recitation, and it is not proven by a correct chain of transmission other than mutawatir even if it agrees with the script of the Uthmanic and Arabic Qur’ans. Sheikh Abu Muhammad Makki said: The correct recitation is that which has a correct chain of transmission to the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - and its face is permissible in Arabic and agrees with the script of the Qur’an .

Some of the later scholars followed him in this, and Ibn al-Jazari followed it in his Nashr and Tayyiba. He said in it:

So everything that agrees with the face of… and the script has a possibility that includes it

and its chain of transmission is correct is the Qur’an… So these three are the pillars,

and whenever a pillar is missing, I prove… Its anomaly is if it is in the seven.

This is an innovated statement that cannot be relied upon and leads to equating other than the Qur’an with the Qur’an. The difference in recitation does not undermine the establishment of mutawatir, as the recitation may have been mutawatir among some people and not others, so each of the reciters did not recite according to the recitation of another because it did not reach him by way of mutawatir. Therefore, none of them criticised the recitation of another because the condition of its validity was established for him, even if he did not recite according to it because the condition was missing for him. The anomalous is that which is not mutawatir, and everything that is now more than the ten recitations is not mutawatir. Ibn al-Jazari said: The statement of the one who said that the mutawatir recitations have no limit, if he meant in our time, is incorrect because there is no mutawatir recitation today beyond ten, and if he meant in the first generation, then it is possible. Ibn al-Subki said: It is not permissible to recite according to the anomalous, and the correct thing is that it is beyond ten. He said in Mana’ al-Mawani’: The statement that the three recitations are not mutawatir is extremely invalid and it is not correct to say it from someone whose statement is considered in religion.

2. Al-Munsir was ignorant of what we mentioned previously, that those who say that mutawatir is a condition did not deny the seven and ten recitations. Rather, they said that it was transmitted by mutawatir, and this is what is common between those who stipulated the mutawatir of the reading and those who did not stipulate it, as they agreed that the ten readings were correct according to their standards .

We read from Al-Murshid Al-Wajeez by Abu Shamah, may God have mercy on him, Part One, Chapter Five:
(( It has become widespread on the tongues of a group of later reciters and others from the imitators that all the seven readings are mutawatir, meaning every individual individual that was narrated from these seven imams. They said: And it is obligatory to be certain that it was revealed from God.

And we say this, but in what the paths agreed upon to transmit from them and the groups agreed upon without any objection to it, even though it became widespread, famous, and widespread, then the least that is required is if the mutawatir does not agree on some of them. For the seven readings are what was narrated from the seven imams, the famous reciters, and that which was narrated from them is divided into what was agreed upon from them and the paths did not differ in it, and into what was differed in it in the sense that its attribution to them was denied in some of the paths. So the compilers of the books of readings differ greatly in this, and whoever browses their books in this regard and examines their words in it will know the correctness of what we mentioned))

As for the argument of those who say that every reading is mutawatir, they argued that the chains of transmission of some of the readings, even if they did not reach mutawatir, except that The consensus of the people of all Egypt, from all classes, generation after generation, on this reading indicates that it is transmitted in a moral sense.

We read from the book, The Specialized Quranic Encyclopedia, Part One, Chapter on Mutawatir and Single Source of Narrators:
(([Mutawatir and Single Source of Narrators:]

Mutawatir of the ten readings is not through what was recorded in the chains of transmission, because it goes back to a limited number, but if you look at the fact that this limited number was not specific to them, rather this narration of his was read by others who are countless - the point is that the recorders were limited to these to control and edit what they recorded - then you know with certainty that it was Mutawatir and it continues to be Mutawatir. So the readings are not like the hadith, its source is like its source if it is based on one person then it is Single Source - this is not the case - but it was only attributed to that imam technically, otherwise the people of every town used to recite it, they took it from people to people, and if one person was alone with a reading without the people of knowledge of the readings, no one would agree with him on that, rather they would avoid it and order its avoidance))

And likewise, he deceived Imam Ibn al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him. We have previously mentioned that Ibn al-Jazari considered the reading that met the condition of a sound chain of transmission and conformity with the language and the Uthmanic script to be a sound reading that is neither irregular nor weak. What al-Mansir did here by quoting from the research on the objections of linguists and grammarians to the seven readings is only to make the reader think that Ibn al-Jazari said that some readings were irregular, and this is a lie, since as we have repeatedly explained, the term irregularity is not applied to a reading that met the three pillars of soundness - even if it did not reach the level of mutawatir in the chains of transmission - even among those who did not stipulate mutawatir .

Ibn al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him, said in al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Introduction:

“Then the reciters after those mentioned increased in number and dispersed in the lands and spread out, and after them came nations after nations. Their classes were known, and their characteristics differed. Among them were those who mastered recitation and were famous for narration and knowledge, and among them were those who limited themselves to one of these descriptions. Because of this, differences increased among them, and control decreased, and the breach widened, and falsehood almost became confused with truth. So the great scholars of the nation and the leaders of the imams rose up, and they exaggerated in their efforts and clarified the intended truth, and they collected the letters and readings, and attributed the aspects and narrations, and distinguished between the famous and the anomalous, and the correct and the unique, with principles that they established and pillars that they separated. And here we are pointing to it and relying as they relied on it, so we say:

Every reading that agrees with Arabic even in one way, and agrees with one of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an even if it is possible and its chain of transmission is sound, then it is the correct reading that it is not permissible to reject it and it is not permissible to deny it. Rather, it is one of the seven letters in which the Qur’an was revealed.” It is obligatory for people to accept it, whether it is from the seven imams, or from the ten, or from other accepted imams. Whenever one of these three pillars is missing, it is called weak, anomalous, or invalid, whether it is from the seven or from someone greater than them. This is what is correct according to the imams of investigation from the predecessors and successors . Imam al-Hafiz Abu Amr Uthman ibn Sa`id al-Dani stated this, and Imam Abu Muhammad Makki ibn Abi Talib stated it in more than one place, as did Imam Abu al-`Abbas Ahmad ibn `Ammar al-Mahdawi. It was verified by Imam al-Hafiz Abu al-Qasim `Abd al-Rahman ibn Ismail, known as Abu Shamah. It is the doctrine of the predecessors, and no one is known to have disagreed with it. ))
Then he mentioned an incident from the book Al-Mi’yar Al-Mu’arrab and Al-Jami’ Al-Maghrib in the Fatwas of the People of Africa, Andalusia and Morocco, Part Twelve, Page 76, the gist of which is that a person denied the continuity of the seven readings, so he was killed by slaughtering him, as if he wanted to mislead people, “Look how sensitive the situation is with you.” But the problem is that on the same page there is something that refutes his words, as the author says a few lines later:
(( And our Sheikh Abu Abdullah bin Al-Habbab told me the story and told me that his nephew slaughtered him to hasten his inheritance .))

This is funny because this incident has nothing to do with proving that saying that some readings are not continuity indicates that the Qur’an is not continuity, and that the continuity of some readings, despite fulfilling the three conditions, indicates that they are abnormal. So Al-Munsir here is throwing in anything to make his words seem more beautiful, but no way, because on the same page we find that the killing of this man actually went back to his nephew’s greed for his money!!!

Then Al-Mansour quoted a statement from Ayman Baqla in his book “Tashil Ilm Al-Qira’at” page 212. The reality of the matter is:
1. The Sheikh was commenting on the statement of Al-Zarqani, may God have mercy on him, and it was not his statement.
2. The Sheikh said this comment in the context of explaining that the predecessors did not stipulate the continuity of the recitation when receiving the recitation from their Sheikhs, but rather their concern was the authenticity of the chain of transmission, its conformity with the Arabic language, and its conformity with the writing of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an .
This is indicated by what he mentioned on page 212, and we will provide you with the full context of the speech in the pictures below.






After that, he deceived several sources based on his ignorance, which we explained above, regarding the difference between the two groups regarding the continuity of the recitation being a criterion for accepting the authenticity of the recitation, while they agreed that the ten recitations are correct and acceptable.
Among these sources is the book “The Science of Readings: Its Origins, Its Phases, and Its Impact on Islamic Sciences” by Dr. Nabil Al-Ismail.

As for the deception that shows that Al-Mansour was indeed a traitor in transmitting what he deceived Al-Zarkashi in Al-Burhan, we have previously explained - above - that Al-Zarkashi says that the Qur’an as a whole is mutawatir and that some of the readings are not mutawatir and some are mutawatir. On top of that, Al-Zarkashi stated in another place in his book that the seven readings met the conditions of authenticity, contrary to what Al-Mansour wanted to make us believe, which is the equation that only a fool would do :
some of the readings are not mutawatir, as Al-Zarkashi said. So Al-Zarkashi denies the authenticity of these readings because they are not mutawatir. So the Qur’an is not mutawatir and not preserved!!!
We read what Al-Munsir excerpted from what Imam Al-Zarkashi said in Al-Burhan, Part One, the twenty-second type:
((The twenty-second type: Knowing the difference in words by addition or subtraction or changing the vowel or confirming one word instead of another,


and this is mutawatir and ahad, and this aspect of the science of recitation is found, and the best subject for the seven recitations is the book At-Taysir by Abu Amr Al-Dani, and Abu Muhammad Al-Qasim organized it. Ash-Shatibi in his Lamiyyah, which was widely used, and the book Al-Iqna’ by Abu Ja’far ibn Al-Badish, and in the ten readings, the book Al-Misbah by Abu Al-Karm Al-Shahrzouri.

Know that the Qur’an and the readings are two different realities. The Qur’an is the revelation sent down to Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, for clarification and miracle, and the readings are The difference in the words of the aforementioned revelation in the writing of the letters or their manner of lightening and heavyening and other things. Then here are matters:

One of them: That the seven readings are mutawatir according to the majority, and it was said that they are well-known, and no attention should be paid to al-Mubarrad’s denial of Hamza’s reading of {and the wombs} and {my two brothers}, nor to the denial of the western grammarians like Ibn Usfur of Ibn Amir’s reading of {killing their children, their partners}. The truth is that they are mutawatir from the seven imams. As for their mutawatir from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, then in it is Consider that the chain of transmission of the seven imams with these seven readings is found in the books of readings, and it is the transmission of one person from another, and it does not fulfill the conditions of tawatur in the equality of the two sides and the middle, and this is something found in their books, and Sheikh Shihab al-Din Abu Shamah has indicated something of that in his book al-Murshid al-Wajeez. ))

And we read Al-Zarkashi’s statement on the correctness of the readings from the same previous source:
((And this is an exaggeration , and there has been consensus on the correctness of the reading of these imams and that it is a followed Sunnah and there is no room for ijtihad in it. For this reason, Sibawayh said in his book regarding the Almighty’s statement: {This is not a human being} and Banu Tamim raise it except for those who know how it is in the Mushaf.
And it was only like that because the reading is a Sunnah. Narrated from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the recitation cannot be other than what was narrated from him . End quote.

And with the same logic and failed deception, it was narrated from Al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, in Nail Al-Awtar, even though Al-Shawkani says that the recitations whose chain of transmission is authentic and agree with Arabic and the Uthmanic script are correct. Therefore, he quoted the same words of Ibn Al-Jazari and Abu Shamah, whom I quoted above.
Quoted from Nail al-Awtar by Imam al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, Part Two, Book of Clothing, Chapter on Chapters of Prayer:
((Chapter on the proof in prayer with the recitation of Ibn Mas`ud and Ubayy]
The hadith of Abu Hurayrah was also narrated by Abu Ya`la and al-Bazzar, and in it is Jarir ibn Ayyub al-Bajali, who is rejected, but al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani narrated it with this wording in al-Kabir and al-Awsat from the hadith of `Ammar ibn Yasir. He said in Majma` al-Zawa`id: Al-Bazzar's men are trustworthy. His saying: (Ibn Umm Abd) is Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. It has been narrated that none memorized the entire Qur'an during his time - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - except these four. The author - may Allah have mercy on him - devoted this chapter to refuting those who say: Nothing is sufficient in prayer except the recitation of the seven reciters. The famous ones said: Because what was transmitted individually is not the Qur’an, and only the seven were transmitted in succession, without others, so there is no Qur’an except what they included.This condition was rejected by the Imam of Qira’at al-Jazari, who said in al-Nashr: Some of the later scholars claimed that the Qur’an is not proven except by continuous transmission, and what is in it is not hidden, because if we stipulate continuous transmission in every letter of the letters of disagreement, many of the letters of disagreement that are proven from these seven and others will be negated. He said: I was inclined towards this. The statement, then its corruption became apparent, and the Imams of the Salaf and Khalaf agreed on its opposite. He said: The recitation attributed to each reciter from the seven and others is divided into the agreed upon and the anomalous, except that these seven, due to their fame and the abundance of the authentic, agreed upon recitation in their recitation, the soul is inclined to what was transmitted from them above of what It was transmitted from others.

So look at how he made the condition of tawatur a statement of some of the later scholars, and made the statement of the imams of the Salaf and Khalaf to be contrary to it. He also said in An-Nashr: Every reading that agrees with Arabic, even in one way, and agrees with one of the Uthmanic copies, even if it is a possibility, and its chain of transmission is authentic, then it is the correct reading that cannot be rejected and it is not permissible to deny it. Rather, it is one of the seven letters in which the Qur’an was revealed, and it is obligatory upon the people to accept it, whether it was from the seven imams. Or from the ten or from other accepted Imams? And whenever one of these three pillars is missing, it is called weak, or anomalous, or invalid, whether it is from the seven or from someone greater than them. This is what is correct according to the Imams of verification from the Salaf and Khalaf. This was stated explicitly by the Madani, the Makki, the Mahdawi, and Abu A mole, and this is the doctrine of the Salaf, from whom no one is known to have disagreed. We

also read what Al-Shawkani, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Irshad Al-Fuhool, Part One, Objective One, Chapter Two:
((A group of the reciters have transmitted the consensus that in these recitations there is what is mutawatir, and in them there is what is ahad, and none of them said that each one of the seven is mutawatir, let alone the ten, and it is only a statement that some of the people of the principles said, Artists are more knowledgeable about their art
.Conclusion: Whatever the Noble Qur’an contains and the famous reciters agree upon is Qur’an. As for whatever they differed upon, if the script of the Qur’an accepts the reading of each of the different reciters while conforming to the grammatical aspect and the Arabic meaning, then it is all Qur’an. If some of it is possible and not others, then if the chain of transmission of what it does not allow is correct, and it is in agreement with the grammatical aspect and the Arabic meaning, then it is anomalous, and it has the ruling of individual reports in indicating its meaning, whether it is from the seven readings or from others.
And as for that which is not authenticated in its chain of transmission and which the script does not support, then it is not the Qur’an, nor is it considered a single narration .

Then Al-Munsir made an effort to explain what the people of the first school of thought said (those who did not stipulate mutawatir for the validity of the recitation) about the fact that every recitation is in reality, from the aspect of the chain of transmission, mutawatir from the reciter to whom the recitation was attributed. And this, while correct, does not negate the mutawatir of the Qur’an, as we explained previously, in view of the difference between the mutawatir of the Qur’an as a whole and the mutawatir of each recitation. And the supporters of the second school of thought responded to the supporters of the first school of thought with what we have quoted and we repeat it again.
We read from the book, The Specialized Qur’anic Encyclopedia, Part One, Chapter on mutawatir and the single source of the source:

(([Tawatir and the single source of the source:]

The mutawatir of the ten recitations is not… By what was recorded in the chains of transmission, because they go back to a limited number, but if you look at that this limited number was not exclusive to it, rather this narration of his was read by others who are countless - the point is that the recorders limited themselves to these to control and edit what they recorded - then you know for sure that it was mutawatir and it is still mutawatir. So the readings are not like the hadith, its transmitter is like its transmitter if it is based on one person then it is individual - this is not the case - but it was only attributed to that imam technically, otherwise the people of every town used to read it, they took it from people to people, and if one person was alone with a reading without the people of knowledge of the readings, no one would agree with him on that, rather they would avoid it and order its avoidance))

And this is what Al-Zarqani himself said, may God have mercy on him, after Al-Munsir cited his words, but as usual - forgery, truncation and truncation so that the glory of the Lord may increase. A reading from Manahil Al-Irfan by Al-Zarqani, may God have mercy on him, Part One, Type Twenty-Two:
((I said: This is from the same type as that speech The advanced. I stopped it from our Sheikh, the Imam, the one of his time, Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Khatib Baybroud al-Shafi’i, and he said to me: Abu Shamah is excused, since the readings are like the hadith, their source is like its source. If it is based on one person, then it is individual, and it was hidden from him that it was attributed to that Imam technically. Otherwise, all the people of a town used to read it, and they took it from people to people. If one person was alone in reciting a reading that the people of his town did not, no one would agree with him on that, rather they would avoid it and order others to avoid it.

I said: He is truthful. And what indicates this is what Ibn Mujahid said: Qanbal told me: Al-Qawwas said in the year two hundred and thirty-seven: Meet this man, meaning Al-Bazzi, and say to him: This letter is not from our recitation. He means {And he is not dead} with a lightened vowel. And only the dead is lightened for the one who has died, and the one who has not died is doubled. So I met Al-Bazzi and told him, and he said to him: I have gone back on it. And Muhammad ibn Salih said: I heard a man say to Abu Amr: How do you recite {No one can punish with his punishment. And no one can bind his bond}? He said: {No one can bind with his bond} with a kasra. The man said to him: How? And it was narrated from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he does not punish with a fatha. So Abu Amr said to him: If you named the man who said: I named the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, I would not have taken it from him. Or do you know what that is? Because I accuse the odd one if he is contrary to what the general people have come with. Sheikh Abu Al-Hasan Al-Sakhawi said: The reading of Al-Fath is also proven by Tawatur. I said: It is true because it is the reading of Al-Kisa’i. Al-Sakhawi said: The report has been Tawatur among some people and not others. Abu Amr only denied it because it did not reach him by Tawatur.

Then it was reported from the researcher of the book Al-Tabsira that the recording of the chains of transmission of the ten readings is limited to three books, which are:

1. The poem of Al-Shatibiyyah, known as the poem of Hirs Al-Amani and Wajh Al-Tahani by Imam Al-Shatibi, may God have mercy on him.

2. The poem of Al-Durrah Al-Mudhi’ah fi Al-Qira’at Al-Thalatha Al-Mardiyah by Ibn Al-Jazari, may God have mercy

on him. 3. Al-Nashr fi Al-Qira’at Al-‘Ashr by Ibn Al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him, as well.

And it was concluded from this that there is no Tawatur because of this!!!!! I wonder how the level of ignorance of this missionary has reached this level. What does limiting the recording of the chains of transmission of the Qur’an to the ten reciters have to do with these books, since it is known that:

First: the certificates of authorization today contain the chain of transmission of the reciter to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and

grant him peace. Second: the number of books that recorded the chains of transmission from the reciters to the ten reciters has nothing to do with the mutawatir nature of the Qur’an or not!!! Otherwise, let us quote one of the scholars who states that recording the chains of transmission should be expanded in books so that the chains of transmission reach the level of mutawatir!!! Then

he says, “The mutawatir has been ruined!” And I say, “Your appearance has been ruined in front of your followers, because no one would say this except someone who is below the line of scientific poverty!!!”

Then he quoted from the book At-Tashil fi Ilm Al-Qira'at by Dr. Ayman Baqla that most of the chains of transmission of licenses today go back to Ibn Al-Jazari (may Allah have mercy on him). The response to this is :

First: Al-Shatibi Al-Qasim bin Fira (may Allah have mercy on him) quoted his chains of transmission in his poem Al-Shatibiyyah, and he was before Ibn Al-Jazari (may Allah have mercy on him), and its chains of transmission go back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Second: Dr. Ayman Baqla stated, after the words quoted by Al-Mansir, that the reading of the reader with his license is definitively proven from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and even if we cannot judge it by the ruling of the mutawatir in the chains of transmission, we can judge it by the mutawatir in the definitive ruling .


After that, Al-Mansir went on to accuse Ibn Al-Jazari (may Allah have mercy on him) of being the one who introduced the claim of the authority of the three readings out of the seven!!!! I wish I could describe to you the amount of lies, fraud, and shamelessness in this claim!!!

Among those who said that these three readings were definitive before Ibn Al-Jazari (may Allah have mercy on him):

1. Ibn Al-Salah (may Allah have mercy on him).

We read from Al-Burhan in the Sciences of the Qur’an, Part One, Type Twenty-Two:

((The Shafi’i Sheikh said: It is a condition that what is recited be transmitted by continuous transmission from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as the Qur’an, and its transmission has become widespread in this regard, and the nation has accepted it, like these seven recitations, because what is considered in this is certainty and conviction based on what has been established and paved the way in the fundamentals. So as for what is not found in it, except for The ten. So, whoever is forbidden from reciting it is forbidden, not forbidden, out of dislike, in prayer and outside of prayer. And whoever is aware of the sources and meanings is forbidden from it, and whoever does not know that is obligated to do so. And it is obligatory upon whoever is able to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong to do so. And whoever transmitted it from the scholars transmitted it for benefits, some of which are related to the knowledge of Arabic, not reading it. This is the way of whoever His path was straightened, then he said: The anomalous reading is that which was transmitted as the Qur’an without continuous transmission and widespread acceptance from the Imams, as is included in Al-Muhtasib by Ibn Jinni and others. As for the reading with the meaning of permitting it without transmitting the Qur’an, then that is not from the anomalous reading at all, and the one who dares to do that is daring to Great and far astray, so he is punished and prevented by imprisonment and the like. And it is obligatory to prevent the reciter of the anomalies and to make him sinful after he is informed. And if he does not refrain, then he is punished according to its condition. As for when the reciter begins to recite, he should not stop reciting with it what remains of the speech related to what he began with. And whatever contradicts this is from it. 2. Makki ibn Abi Talib, may Allah have mercy on him

.

We read from Al-Ibanah, the chapter on the reason for the fame of the seven reciters without those above them
((The first to limit himself to these was Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid1 before the year 300 or thereabouts, and he was followed in that by those who came after him, up until now. And the recitation was not abandoned by the recitation of others, and the choice of those who came after them up until now is this recitation of Ya`qub al-Hadrami1 that has not been abandoned. Likewise the recitation of `Asim al-Jahdari2. And the recitation of Abu Ja`far3 and Shaybah4 are Imami Nafi`. And likewise the choice of Abu Hatim5, and Abu `Ubayd6, and the choice of al-Mufaddal7 .))

3. Al-Baghawi, may Allah have mercy on him.

We read what Ibn al-Jazari, may God have
mercy on him, narrated from al-Baghawi’s words in al-Nashr al-Muqaddimah: “The great scholar, the Shafi’i scholar and the expert in Islamic sciences, Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Abd al-Kafi al-Subki, said in his commentary on al-Minhaaj in the description of prayer: (Branch) They said - meaning our jurists - that it is permissible to recite in prayer and otherwise according to the seven recitations, but it is not permissible according to the anomalous recitations.” The apparent meaning of this statement suggests that other than the seven famous ones, there are exceptions.Al-Baghawi mentioned at the beginning of his interpretation the agreement on the reading according to the reading of Yaqub and Abu Ja`far with the seven famous ones. He said: This statement is the correct one . Know that what is outside the seven well-known ones is divided into two types: Some of them contradict the script of the Mushaf, and there is no doubt that it is not permissible to recite them, neither in prayer nor otherwise. Some of them do not contradict the script of the Mushaf, but recitation with them is not well-known, but rather they were transmitted through a strange chain of transmission that cannot be relied upon. This shows the prohibition of recitation with them. Also, among them is what is well-known among the imams of this matter, reading it in the past and present, so there is no reason to prevent it, and among that is the reading of Ya`qub and others. He said: Al-Baghawi is the most deserving of being relied upon in that; for he is a reciter, a jurist, and a collector of knowledge. He said: And this is the detail in the anomalies of the seven, for there are many anomalies from them. It's over))

And this missionary, after all this deception that he wanted to do, did not achieve his goal and did not take what he desired. Rather, he was like someone who stretched out his hands to the water to reach his mouth, but he did not reach it!!!

Fourth: She accused me of her disease and slipped away!!! The loss of the Torah and the interruption of its chains of transmission!!! And the loss of documentation of the oral heritage of the New Testament!!

The Torah was restricted to the possession of the Levite priests only since the time of Moses, peace be upon him .

We read from Deuteronomy 31:24

When Moses had finished writing the words of this Torah in a book until they were complete,

25 Moses commanded the Levites who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying:

26 “Take this book of the Torah and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you.

27 For I know your rebellion and your stiff neck. Behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, you have become rebellious against the Lord, how much more after my death!

28 Gather to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing, and call heaven and earth to witness against them.

29 For I know that after my death you will act corruptly and will turn aside from the way which I have commanded you, and evil will befall you in the latter days, because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger with the works of your hands.”

And above that we find that the Book of the Law (and it is likely that it is the Book of Deuteronomy) was lost and then found during the time of King Josiah.

We read from the Book of Kings, Chapter 22:

3 Now in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam,

the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying: 4 “Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, and let him count the money that is brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the gate have collected from the people,

5 And they shall give it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD, and they shall give it to the workmen who are in the house of the LORD to repair the breach in the house,

6 to the carpenters, the builders, and the stonecutters, and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house.”

7 But they were not held accountable for the money that was given into their hands, for they had acted faithfully.

8 Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD.” And Hilkiah gave the Book to Shaphan, who read it.

9 Then Shaphan the scribe came to the king and brought word to the king, saying, “Your servants have emptied the money that was found in the house and have delivered it into the hands of the workmen who are in charge of the house of the LORD.”

10 Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king.

11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes .

This situation is very deplorable!!! Because it means that ignorance of the Torah has reached a high degree where an entire book is lost and no one knows that it is lost until they find it and throw it carelessly in the temple!!!

We read from Antonius Fikry’s interpretation of the Second Book of Kings, Chapter 22:
((The Book of the Law = that is, the Book of Deuteronomy or the Five Books of Moses. The copies of the Law were very few. In the time of the wicked kings, they neglected it and no one asked about it. Often, with the absence of a Book of the Law before they discovered it, everyone followed the instructions of the priests. Despite all these circumstances, a righteous king, Kiosia, emerged, and this is certainly an act of God’s grace. Let us note that when they found it, they read it and did not keep it as a blessing, but rather they read it and benefited from it. This is the effect of the Holy Book and its importance, that we meditate on the Law of God, for the Word of God is living and effective… Hebrews 12:4. And in verse (9), his servants emptied the silver = that is, they emptied the chest (9:12) in which the silver was placed. And in 10, we see the widespread ignorance!! Hilkiah the priest gave me a scroll = that is, a book, and he did not say the Book of the Law, for he did not know what this book was. He tore his clothes = he believed the terrifying words of threat (Deut. 28, No. 26) And he felt his sins and the sins of the people in neglecting the Book of the Law. Go, ask for me = that is, look for a prophet and ask him what we should do so that God may lift His anger from us. ))


Rather, we find in the Book of Joshua that Joshua wrote a copy of the Torah on a rock and then read it to all the children of Israel. And we ask, is one rock enough to contain all that is in the five books today??!!!!

We read from the Book of Joshua, Chapter 8, verse

31, “As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Law of Moses.” An altar of whole stones, on which no one had lifted an iron tool, and they offered burnt offerings on it to the Lord and slaughtered peace offerings.

32 And he wrote there on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.

33 And all Israel, with their elders, and the officers, and their judges, stood on the side of the ark, on this side and on that side, opposite the Levitical priests who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, both the stranger and the native. Half of them toward Mount Gerizim, and half of them toward Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded at first, to bless the people of Israel.

3 4 Afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the cursing, according to all that is written in the book of the law.

35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the congregation of Israel, including the women, the little ones, and the strangers who lived among them.

And do we talk about the names of those lost books such as the Book of Jasher and the Book of the Wars of the Lord or the Book of Iddo the Seer or the Chronicles of Nathan and the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite?

We read from the Book of 2 Samuel, Chapter 1

: 17 And David lamented with this lamentation for Saul and for Jonathan his son, 18 And he said, Let the children of Judah learn the Song of the Bow. Behold, it is written in the Book of Jasher: 19 “The gazelle, O Israel, is slain on your high places; how have the mighty fallen !

We read from the Second Book of Chronicles, Chapter 9:29

Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the books of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?


We read a shocking admission of this, namely that the author of the Books of Chronicles relied on sources other than the Torah and the Books of Samuel and Kings.
We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, pages 728-731:
((The writer did not in fact write a narrative inspired by his knowledge of the history of his ancient people, but rather transferred a number of documents in his possession and classified them in an order that suited the aim of his author and revised them based on other documents he had seen or according to his view of history and its meaning. He was interested in mentioning his references - and this is a rare thing in his time - and we learned valuable news, even if it was incomplete and sometimes difficult to clarify...
However, we can verify the existence of three groups of documents used by the historian: the first is the Books of Samuel and Kings, from which he transferred complete narratives, then another historical document that was lost and contained elements that the historian used to complete the previous books (perhaps this document is what is referred to by the term Midrash or interpretation of the Book of Kings), and finally a group of documents containing various prophetic traditions that the historian mentioned in a way that It is unclear and is issued either from the books of Samuel and Kings (traditions about Samuel) or from the books of the prophets (Isaiah) or from other references that we do not know today . .....
Finally, his style of composition includes a work intended to complete what was mentioned in the main references of news, that is, in the books of Samuel and Kings. The historian used other documents and written traditions, and perhaps oral ones as well, in some aspects of the history of the people, so he came with complementary details that are not mentioned in the books of the Hebrew law and are therefore very valuable for us to know this history better.. And if some paragraphs of his text express his personal thoughts and his perception of things, the matter is not like this in view of the large number of details that cannot be the work of his imagination, but rather he found them in references that we do not know now. )) .

Well, what about the mechanism of composing the two books of Chronicles? Was it accurate or sometimes did it depend on intuition and guesswork if we say that Ezra is the one who wrote them!!??
Adam Clarke's Interpretation of 1 Chronicles Chapter 8:
((And at Gibeon - This passage to the end of the 38th verse is found with a little variety in the names, Ch1 9:35-44.
The rabbins say that Ezra, having found two books that had these passages with a variety in the names, as they agreed in general, he thought best to insert them both, not being able to discern which was the best.
His general plan was to collate all the copies he had, and to follow the greater number when he found them to agree; those which disagreed from the majority were thrown aside as spurious; and yet, in many cases, probably the copies contained the true text.
If Ezra proceeded as R. Sol. Jarchi says, he had a very imperfect idea of ​​the rules of true criticism;
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt...0vkFR6Oz0K7rIM

This is a shocking admission, as it is mentioned that Ezra the priest (who is attributed with the authorship of the two books of Chronicles) sometimes, while composing the two books, combined the different sources that were available at his disposal at that time, so that he would add them together or choose between them. However, the problem sometimes - according to Adam Clarke - is that he sometimes chose the texts that agreed with the reading of the majority of the sources available to him, which led - in many cases - to the possibility of neglecting the sources that contained the correct reading !!!

As for the issue of collecting the Torah from its writing, I give information to the missionary: The Jews - who are the chosen people of God according to your claim, and moreover they are the writers of your book and those who collected it - believe that the Torah was actually lost and then brought by Ezra.
We read from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
((Ezra was worthy of being the vehicle of the Law, had it not already been given through Moses (Sanh. 21b). It was forgotten, but Ezra restored it (Suk. 20a) . But for its sins, Israel in the time of Ezra would have witnessed miracles as in the time of Joshua (Ber. 4a). Ezra was the disciple of Baruch ben Neriah (Cant. R.); his studies prevented him from joining the first party returning to Jerusalem in the reign of Cyrus, the study of the Law being of greater importance than the reconstruction of the Temple. ))
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/a...zra-the-scribe

and the source you are referring to The Jewish Encyclopedia is Talmud Sukkah 20 a:
(( The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Reish Lakish said: I am the atonement for Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons, as initially,When some of the Torah laws were forgotten from the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, Ezra ascended from Babylonia and reestablished the forgotten laws. Parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, and Hillel the Babylonian ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. When parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. This expression of difference toward Rabbi Ḥiyya introduces the halakha that Reish Lakish is citing in his name. And so said Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons: Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis did not disagree concerning the soft mats of Usha))
https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.20a?lang=en

And this is a truly disastrous text because it talks about Parts of the Torah were lost more than once!!!!

As for the New Testament, what do you know about the New Testament and its transmission? I will leave to Al-Mansir a previous study of mine that reveals the weak mechanism of oral transmission in the first century, and whether it was actually transmitted continuously!!

The New Testament began to be written in the first century, and perhaps the first writing that appeared in the first century was the letters of Paul, and then the four Gospels were written. It is noted that the Gospels in general went through a period known as oral transmission, where stories about the life of Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, were circulated among people and among the early Christians. However, it is known that not all of these stories were recorded in the four Gospels, as there are stories that were lost.
We read from the introduction to the New Testament by Aziz Serial, page 106:
(( But this does not mean that the writings of the Apostle Paul were the first to be put on paper, but rather many things must have been written before them that did not reach us in the form in which they were written. This is indicated by what the Evangelist Luke said in the introduction to his Gospel : ((Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word)) (Luke 1:1-2))

We conclude from this that the aforementioned oral transmission was characterized by the following characteristics:
1. That the mechanism of this transmission did not depend on the literal memorization of the text, but rather the transmitter was transmitting the story And its details - which he heard - to others in his own formulation and not literally.
2. That these stories did not reach us in full, there are stories that have been lost and covered by time!
3. That we do not know the names of those who transmitted these stories, nor do we know the extent of their honesty, nor do we know the strength of their memorization, nor from whom they heard them, except that the method followed by the church is: that if this is it, then they certainly heard them from eyewitnesses, or the final source of the stories was eyewitnesses!! Like this without evidence!!!! .

And writing in this short period - and here I mean writing the biography of Christ - was almost non-existent for several reasons, the most important of which is that the majority of Christians at that time believed that Christ, peace be upon him, would descend very soon!!

We read from the introduction to the New Testament by Aziz Serial, page 106-107:
(( The student can find two important reasons why the early Christians did not rush to write down this testimony. The first reason is that they believed that Christ was coming quickly and the end of the world was near.... As for the second reason, it is the belief of the early Christians that the spoken word is much greater than the written word. As long as the apostles who were eyewitnesses are still present and have the certain news, there is no need to write, as their word is greater than any written word. This opinion remained prevalent even after the Gospels were written and spread. ))
This is


clear in that oral transmission was the basis and the mainstay and that it was viewed as taking precedence over the written word!!!

It is likely that the beginnings of these stories transmitted during that period were in fact only the sayings attributed to Christ, peace be upon him, and some incidents. The truth must be said that we cannot be certain or determine exactly what the sayings attributed to Christ, peace be upon him, were that they transmitted, and what their general structure was. Everything that is said in this regard is based on guesswork, as we do not have a manuscript dating back to this period that records for us those sayings circulated among the early Christians, whether in Palestine or in Asia Minor .
We read from the book Introduction to the Holy Book by Father Habib Saeed, pages 215-216:
((Jesus himself did not write anything, nor did his followers think of recording a written story about their Master and handing it down to later generations. In the absence of direct evidence to guide us, we are forced to resort to intuition and conjecture. It is very likely that some of Jesus’ disciples collected for their own use collections of Christ’s sayings and incidents that they saw as of serious importance. We know from the statements of textual critics and New Testament manuscript scholars that the Gospel of Mark is considered the reference Gospel for both the Gospels


of Matthew and Luke, meaning that the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke relied on the Gospel of Mark to write their Gospel as one of the sources. However, when talking about the period before the writing of the Gospel of Mark, it can be said that this period was limited to the transmission of the sayings attributed to Christ, peace be upon him, and some of his works, without including the historical narration of the life of Christ, peace be upon him .
We read from the Jesuit monastic translation in the introduction to the Gospel of Mark, page 120:
(( The question of Mark’s references remains the same in its entirety. Critics imagine him in a way that they differ in according to the importance they give to Mark when they compare him with Matthew and Luke. Some of them see him as the original on which they relied. Others see that there was, before Mark, a first summary in which there was a tradition about Jesus. Whatever the case, it is inferred from the composition of the Gospel of Mark that there was a period prior to the tradition in which people transmitted the sayings and deeds of Jesus in isolation from any comprehensive presentation of his life or teaching. ))


Scholars of manuscripts and textual criticism have gone so far as to look at the study of the sayings attributed to Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that are not found in the Gospel of Mark and have given them the title Q. Critics have stated that these sayings were taken from an older source that was used by Christian teachers in the churches .
We read from the book Introduction to the Bible by Father Habib Saeed, page 216-217:
(( In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke there is much similar material, most of which is from the sayings of Jesus, and it also includes some stories that have no trace in the Gospel of Mark. Scholars have given the letter Q to the materials that are common to Luke and Matthew and not found in Mark... Most scholars agree that the materials referred to by the letter Q were taken from an ancient document that was more like a polemical book that Christian teachers used ... It is very likely that the document Q and the group of affirmative Old Testament verses were among the stories that the evangelist Luke referred to in his introduction. Modern research has led scholars to believe that there was a story in Jerusalem called the letter M that is similar to the document Q referred to above . )) It is clear from the above that several things are: 1. That oral transmission in the period before the writing of the four Gospels was the basis for transmitting only the sayings and actions attributed to Christ, peace and blessings be upon him. However, this transmission was not strictly literal in terms of preservation. In addition, we lack the names of those who transmitted these sayings and actions, the extent of their trustworthiness, the strength of their preservation, and the accuracy of their transmission, and from whom they heard them. We have nothing but guesswork to know the form and structure of this oral transmission.








2. These sayings and actions attributed to Christ, peace be upon him, and transmitted orally in the period before the writing of the Gospels were in themselves a source for the early Christians in Jerusalem - called source (M) - and were distinguished by the fact that they were devoid of a historical narrative of the life of Christ, peace be upon him, as they were satisfied with mentioning the sayings and actions.
3. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke relied in their composition on the Gospel of Mark, but it is believed that some of the sayings attributed to Christ, peace be upon him, in both Gospels - and not found in the Gospel of Mark - go back to an oral tradition older than the Gospel of Mark - called source (Q) .
4. The period of writing the Gospel of Mark (c. 60-70 AD) is considered a turning point where the transmission of the Gospels - or rather the sacred text, whatever its form - began to depend on the written text, and the sayings and actions attributed to Christ, peace be upon him, were placed within a larger content that includes a historical narrative of the life of Christ, peace be upon him, where the text became simply the biography and life of Christ, peace be upon him, from the writer's point of view after the text was the sayings and actions of Christ, peace be upon him (Christ said and Christ did) until we had what is known as the Four Gospels .

We can ask and pose several questions:
1. What are those sayings and actions attributed to Christ, peace be upon him, that were transmitted during that period but were not included in the Four Gospels???
2. What is the guarantee and conclusive evidence that the origin of everything in the Four Gospels goes back to eyewitnesses???
3. What is the degree of scientific reliability associated with this transmitted oral heritage and what it was based on, if we do not even know the names of those who transmitted this oral heritage, nor their honesty, accuracy, and degree of preservation????

4. On what basis did the text transform from a transmission of sayings and actions into a historical narrative, knowing that all the teachers who were in that period, according to what we mentioned, were content with transmitting the sayings and actions of Christ, peace be upon him, without putting those texts in a historical or narrative mold specific to what they imagined to be the biography and life of Christ, peace be upon him????