Final part of debate v2

• Sixth: The response to Al-Munsir’s obligation to us to say Al-Hajjaj.
  
  Al-Munsir cited what Al-Hajjaj said about the recitation of Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, as in the following narration:
  We read from Sunan Ibn Dawud, may God have mercy on him, the first book of Sunnah, the chapter on the Caliphs
  : ((4643 - Muhammad bin Al-Ala’ told us, Abu Bakr told us, on the authority of Asim, he said:
  I heard Al-Hajjaj while he was on the pulpit saying: Fear God as much as you can, there is no Mathnawiyyah in it, and listen and obey, there is no Mathnawiyyah in it, to the Commander of the Faithful, Abdul Malik, and by God, if I ordered the people to leave from one door of the mosque, they would leave from another door, their blood and money would be permissible for me, and by God, if I took Rabi’ah in Mudar, that would be permissible for me from God, and O my excuse from Abd Hudhayl, he claims that his recitation is from God, and by God it is nothing but a filthy Bedouin filth, God Almighty did not send it down to His Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and my excuse from this Al-Hamra, one of them claims that he is throwing a stone, and he says: Until the stone falls, something will happen, and by God, I will leave them as if they were yesterday (1)
  
  I say: The narration is correct and citing it as evidence is invalid for a number of reasons:
  
  First: The apparent meaning of Al-Hajjaj’s words does not include any discussion of the reading of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an, rather the apparent meaning of his words is that he is talking about what was narrated of the anomalous readings from Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him, so he has no reason to use them as evidence against the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an.
  
  Second: Al-Hajjaj’s words stem from fanaticism for the Umayyads, and he is known for being the first to take lives and shed blood (according to Al-Munsir’s admission),
  and all scholars have denounced this .
  We read from the History of Islam by Imam Al-Dhahabi,
  may God have mercy on him, Part Two, Tenth Class: ((Abu Bakr bin Ayyash said, on the authority of Asim: I heard Al-Hajjaj, and he mentioned this verse: {So fear God as much as you are able, and listen and obey}, so he said: This is for the servant of God, for the trustee of God and His successor, there is no duality in it, and by God, if I ordered a man to go out -[1074]- from the door of this mosque, and he took from another, it would be permissible. His blood and his wealth are mine. By Allah, if I were to capture Rabi'ah in Mudar, it would be lawful for me. How strange that Abd Hudhayl ​​claims that he recites a Qur'an from Allah. It is nothing but the filth of the Bedouins. By Allah, if I were to meet Abd Hudhayl, I would strike his neck. Narrated by Wasil ibn Abd al-A'la, a Muslim sheikh, on the authority of Abu Bakr. May
  Allah curse al-Hajjaj. How bold he was against Allah. How could he say: This is about the righteous slave Abdullah bin Masoud!
  Abu Bakr bin Ayyash said: I mentioned this statement of his to Al-A'mash, and he said: I heard it from him.
  Muhammad bin Yazid narrated it on the authority of Abu Bakr, and he added: And I will not find anyone who recites according to the recitation of Ibn Umm Abd except that I will strike his neck, and I will scratch it from the Mushaf even if it is with a pig's rib. ))
  
  Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Abbad said in his explanation of Sunan Abi Dawood,
  may God have mercy on him: ((And he said: [Oh, my excuse for Abd Hudhayl! He claims that his recitation is from God! By God! It is nothing but a Bedouin verse that God did not send down to His Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.]
  This is a false statement, and what is meant by that is Abdullah bin Masoud Al-Hudhali (may Allah be pleased with him), the companion of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), because he has a copy of the Qur’an, and it is not as Al-Hajjaj said, but rather it is from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). This is from his injustice, oppression and lies, because the matter is not as he says. It is known that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) gathered the people on one copy of the Qur’an, and burned everything else except what was with Abdullah bin Masoud, for he refused to give it to them and kept it. Al-Hajjaj said this statement because he did not give Uthman the copy of the Qur’an to burn it as he burned others, and the people remained on the copy of the Qur’an that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) had gathered. So Al-Hajjaj’s statement is false. Imam Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him )
  
  said after citing the previous hadith in Sahih and Da’if Sunan Abi Dawud (may Allah have mercy on him):
  ((The chain of transmission is authentic - to Al-Hajjaj, who is the oppressor and destroyer .))
  
  Third: It is proven that Al-Hajjaj is the destroyer of Thaqeef whom the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) prophesied about, so his testimony here is weak and stems from fanaticism.
  We read from Sahih Muslim, Book of the Virtues of the Companions, Chapter on the mention of the liar of Thaqeef and its destroyer
  ((229 - (2545) Uqbah ibn Mukram al-Ammi narrated to us, Yaqub, meaning ibn Ishaq al-Hadrami narrated to us, al-Aswad ibn Shaiban informed us, on the authority of Abu Nawfal, I saw Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr on the pass of Madinah, he said: So the Quraysh began to pass by him, and the people until Abdullah ibn Umar passed by him, so he stopped Upon him be peace, he said: Peace be upon you, Abu Khubaib, peace be upon you, Abu Khubaib, peace be upon you, Abu Khubaib. By Allah, I used to forbid you from this. By Allah, I used to forbid you from this. By Allah, if you were, as far as I know, a person who fasts, stands in prayer, and maintains the ties of kinship, by Allah, the nation of which you are the worst is a nation of goodness. Then he carried out his command. Abdullah bin Omar, and the situation of Abdullah and his words reached Al-Hajjaj, so he sent for him, and he was taken down from his trunk and thrown into the graves of the Jews. Then he sent for his mother Asma bint Abi Bakr, but she refused to come to him. So he repeated the messenger to her: You must come to me or I will send someone to drag you by your horns. He said: She refused and said: By God I will not come to you until you send someone to drag me by my horns. He said: So he said: Show me my two Sabbaths. So he took his sandals, then he set off, walking until he entered upon her, and he said: What do you think I did to the enemy of God? She said: I saw that you spoiled his worldly life for him, and he spoiled your afterlife for you. It has reached me that you say to him: O son of the one with the two belts, I am, by God, the one with the two belts. As for one of them, I used to lift the food of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the food of Abu Bakr from the animals. As for the other, it is the belt of a woman who cannot do without it. As for the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, He, peace and blessings be upon him, told us, “ There is a liar and a destroyer among Thaqif .” As for the liar, we saw him.As for the destroyer, I think you can only do it with him. He said: So he got up from her and did not return to her.
  
  We read from Al-Minhaaj in the explanation of Sahih Muslim by Imam Al-Nawawi, may God have mercy on him:
  ((Her saying to Al-Hajjaj (The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, told us that among Thaqeef there is a liar and a destroyer. As for the liar, we have seen him, and as for the destroyer, I think you can only do it with him. As for I think you can do it with the opening of the hamza and its breaking, and it is The most famous and its meaning is I think you and the destroyer and the destroyer and her saying about the liar, we saw that she meant by it Al- Muhtar bin Abi Ubaid Al-Thaqafi, he was a severe liar and one of the worst of his claims was that Gabriel, may God bless him and grant him peace, would come to him and the scholars agreed that what is meant by the liar here is Al-Muhtar bin Abi Ubaid and by the destroyer is Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf and God knows best ))
  
  and we read from Al-Kawkab Al-Wahhaaj in the explanation of Sahih Muslim by Muhammad Amin Al-Harari, may God have mercy on him:
  (((As for (The destroyer, so I do not think you) with a kasra on the hamza according to the most common view, and this is contrary to analogy. Some of them have pronounced it with a fatha on the hamza, and this is correct in language and analogy, but the first is what is current on the tongues of many Arabs, meaning: As for the destroyer mentioned by the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, I do not think you, O Hajjaj, (except him), meaning except that destroyer, so in the phrase there is an inversion, meaning: I do not think that destroyer is except you. (He said) Abu Nawfal (So Hajjaj (stood up) from her, meaning from Asma (and did not respond to her) in response to her words, but rather remained silent about her. The gist of this statement is that she made Hajjaj an example of the destroyer whom the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, had informed would appear from Thaqeef, and Hajjaj was from Thaqeef and was known for shedding blood, and God knows best. This hadith is one of the only ones narrated by Imam Muslim, may God have mercy on him .)
  
  The strange thing is that this missionary admitted later that Hajjaj’s words were from the perspective of fanaticism!!
  But what is even more astonishing is his acceptance that Hajjaj said these words, knowing that this narration was transmitted to us with a chain of transmission as well!!!
  Dear reader, have you seen how the chain of transmission is accepted here and challenged elsewhere to say that the chain of transmission is a myth!!!
  
  Seventh: The response to the suspicion that Ibn Masoud (may Allah be pleased with him) denied the two Mu’awwidhat and Al-Fatihah and objected to the Uthmanic copy .
  
  First: The response to Al-Munsir’s citing of the hadith of Hak Ibn Masoud, but he brought it in the book Al-Mushkil by Ibn Al-Jawzi for what is in the two Sahihs .
  I say that the source criticized us for the fact that the narration in Al-Bukhari is abbreviated and said that it is a riddle. I wonder how Al-Munsir deceives the ignorant listeners. This talk is funny in more than one way:
  
  First: It is known from the methodology of Imam Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) in his Sahih that he sometimes selects the place of the witness and sometimes what he heard from his sheikh is abbreviated from other narrations.
  We read from the introduction of Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) to Fath Al-Bari, his commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari:
  ((As for his cutting up the hadith in the chapters sometimes and limiting it to some of it at other times, that is because if the text is short or connected to some and includes two or more rulings, then he repeats it according to that, taking into consideration with that not to be devoid of a hadith benefit, which is his citing it from a sheikh other than the sheikh from whom he cited it before that, as was explained in detail previously, so that you benefit from that by increasing the paths to that hadith, and perhaps the source of the hadith becomes narrow for him where it does not have Except for one path, in which case he would deal with it, and he would cite it in one place connected and in another place suspended, and he would cite it sometimes complete and sometimes limited to the part of it that he needed in that chapter. If the text includes multiple sentences, none of which is related to the other, then from him, through his good deduction and abundant understanding, there is a meaning that the chapter in which he included it requires. He rarely cites a hadith in two places with one chain of transmission and one wording, but rather he cites it from another path for meanings that we will mention. And Allah knows best what he intended from it. One of them is that he narrates the hadith from a companion, then narrates it from another companion, and the intention behind it is to remove the hadith from the level of strangeness. He does the same with the people of the second and third class, and so on to his sheikhs. So whoever sees that from those who are not people of the craft believes that it is repetition, but it is not so because it contains an additional benefit. Another of them is that he has authentic hadiths according to this principle, and each hadith from it contains different meanings, so he narrates it in every chapter from a path other than the first path. Among them are hadiths that some narrators narrate in full and some narrate in shortened form, so he presents them as they came to remove doubt from their transmitters. Among them is that the narrators may have different expressions, so a narrator narrated a hadith in which there is a word that has a possible meaning, and another narrated it, so he expressed that same word with another expression that has a possible meaning, so he presents it with its chains of transmission if it is correct according to his condition, and he devotes a separate chapter to each wording. Among them are hadiths in which connection and irsal conflict, and he preferred connection, so he relied on it and presented irsal, drawing attention to That it has no effect on the connection, and among them are hadiths in which stopping and raising contradict each other, and the ruling in them is like that, and among them are hadiths in which some narrators added a man to the chain of transmission and some of them omitted him, so he narrates them in both ways, where it is correct for him that the narrator heard it from a sheikh who told him about it from another, then he met the other and told him about it, so he narrated it in both ways .
  
  Secondly: The narration came explicitly in other proven ways, so where is the problem!!
  We read from the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, may God have mercy on him, the Musnad of Al-Ansar
  ((21186 - Affan narrated to us, Hammad ibn Salamah narrated to us, Asim ibn Bahdalah informed us, on the authority of Zirr ibn Hubaysh, who said: I said to Ubayy ibn Ka`b: Ibn Mas`ud did not write the two Mu`awwidhatayn in his Mushaf, so he said: “I bear witness that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, informed me: ‘Gabriel said to him: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak, So I said it, and he said: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, so I said it. So we say what the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said (2)
  
  Sheikh Shuaib al-Arna’ut said in his verification of Musnad al-Imam Ahmad, may God have mercy on him:
  (((2) A sound hadith, and this is a good chain of transmission because of Asim ibn Bahdalah, for he is truthful and has good hadith, and he was followed. Affan: He is the son of Muslim al-Saffar al-Basri.))
  
  Second: A general response to the doubt about Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him, reciting the two Mu’awwidhat .
  
  The response to this doubt is from a previous response of mine
  

  First: The authenticity of reciting the two Mu’awwidhat and their continuity has been proven from the chains of transmission of the ten readings and from the authentic Sunnah .
  
  As for the chains of transmission of the ten readings :
  The chain of transmission of Ibn Kathir’s recitation,
  we read in An-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Page 120
  : “Al-Qist also recited, and Ma’ruf and Shibl, on the authority of the Sheikh of Mecca and its Imam in recitation, Abu Ma’bad, Abdullah ibn Kathir ibn ‘Amr ibn Abdullah ibn Zadhan ibn Fayrouzan ibn Hurmuz al-Dari al-Makki. This is the completion of seventy-three paths.” On the authority of Ibn Kathir.
  Ibn Kathir read on the authority of Abu al-Sa’ib Abdullah ibn al-Sa’ib ibn Abi al-Sa’ib al-Makhzumi, on the authority of Abu al-Hajjaj Mujahid ibn Jabr al-Makki, and on Dirbas, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas. Abdullah ibn al-Sa’ib read on the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with them both, and Mujahid read on the authority of Abdullah. Ibn al-Sa’ib, and Dirbas read on his client Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Abbas read on Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Zayd ibn Thabit, and Ubayy, Zayd and Umar - may Allah be pleased with them - read on the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.))
  
  The chain of transmission of Abu Amr’s reading
  , and we read in al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Page 133
  ((And Al-Susi and Al-Duri read on Abu Muhammad Yahya bin Al-Mubarak bin Al-Mughirah Al-Yazidi, and Al-Yazidi read on the Imam of Basra and its reciter Abu Amr Ziyad bin Al-Ala bin Ammar Al-Urayyan bin Abdullah bin Al-Hussain bin Al-Harith Al-Mazini Al-Basri, so that is one hundred and fifty-four paths on Abu Amr, and Abu Amr read to Abu Jaafar Yazid bin Al-Qaqa’, Yazid bin Ruman, Shaiba bin Nasah, Abdullah bin Katheer, Mujahid bin Jabr, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Abu Al-Aliyah Rafi’ bin Mihran Al-Riyahi, Humayd bin Qais Al-A’raj Al-Makki, Abdullah bin Abi Ishaq Al-Hadrami, and Ata’ bin Abi Rabah, Ikrimah ibn Khalid, Ikrimah the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhaysin, Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, Nasr ibn Asim, and Yahya ibn Ya`mur. The chain of transmission of Abu Ja`far will come, and the chain of transmission of Yazid ibn Ruman and Shaybah was presented in the recitation of Nafi`. The chain of transmission of Mujahid was presented in the recitation of Ibn Kathir. Al-Hasan recited On the authority of Hattan bin Abdullah Al-Raqashi and Abu Al-Aaliyah Al-Riyahi, and Hattan read on Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari, and Abu Al-Aaliyah read on Omar bin Al-Khattab, Ubayy bin Ka’b, Zaid bin Thabit, and Ibn Abbas, and Humayd read on Mujahid, and its chain of transmission was presented, and Abdullah bin Abi Ishaq read on Yahya bin Ya’mur and Nasr bin Asim, and Ata’ read on Abu Hurayrah, and his chain of transmission was presented, and Ikrimah ibn Khalid read on the companions of Ibn Abbas, and his chain of transmission was presented, and Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, read on Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Muhaysin read on Mujahid and Dirbas, and their chain of transmission was presented, and the chain of transmission of Asim will come, and Nasr ibn Asim and Yahya ibn Ya’mur read on Abu Al-Aswad, and Abu Al-Aswad read to Uthman and Ali - may Allah be pleased with them - and Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Zayd ibn Thabit, Uthman and Ali - may Allah be pleased with them - read to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.))
  
  The chain of transmission of the reading of Hamza Al-Zayyat,
  and we read in Al-Nashr in the Ten Readings, Part One, Page 165
  ((And Hamzah read to Abu Muhammad Sulayman ibn Mihran al-A’mash in a recital, and it was said: the letters only, and Hamzah also read to Abu Hamzah Humran ibn A’yan, and to Abu Ishaq Amr ibn Abdullah al-Sabi’i, and to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla, and to Abu Muhammad Talhah ibn Musarrif al-Yami, and to Abu Abdullah Jaafar al-Sadiq ibn Muhammad al-Baqir ibn Zayn al-Abidin Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib al-Hashemi, and al-A’mash and Talhah read on Abu Muhammad Yahya ibn Waththab al-Asadi, and Yahya read on Abu Shibl Alqamah ibn Qays, and on his nephew al-Aswad ibn Yazid ibn Qays, and on Zirr ibn Hubaysh, and on Zayd ibn Wahb, and on Ubaydah ibn Amr al-Salmani, and on Masruq ibn al-Ajda’, and Humran read on Abu al-Aswad al-Daylami, and his chain of transmission was presented, and on Ubayd ibn Nadlah, and Ubayd read on Alqamah, and Humran also read on al-Baqir, and Abu Ishaq read on Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, and on Zirr ibn Hubaysh, and their chain of transmission was presented, and on Asim ibn Damrah, and on Al-Harith ibn Abdullah Al-Hamadhani, and Asim and Al-Harith read on Ali, and Ibn Abi Laila read on Al-Minhal ibn Amr and others, and Al-Minhal read on Saeed ibn Jubayr, and its chain of transmission was presented, and Alqamah, Al-Aswad, Ibn Wahb, Masruq, and Asim ibn Damrah read And Al-Harith also read on Abdullah bin Masoud, and Jaafar Al-Sadiq read on his father Muhammad Al-Baqir, and Al-Baqir read on Zain Al-
  Abidin, and Zain Al-Abidin read on his father, the master of the youth of the people of Paradise, Al-Husayn, and Al-Husayn read on his father Ali bin Abi Talib, and Ali and Ibn Masoud - may God be pleased with them - read on the Messenger of God. May God bless him and grant him peace.))
  
  The chain of transmission of Asim’s recitation is mentioned
  in Al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Page 155.
  ((Hafs and Abu Bakr read on the Imam of Kufa and its reciter Abu Bakr Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud bin Bahdalah Al-Asadi, their client from Kufa. That is one hundred and twenty-eight paths for Asim. Asim read on Abu Abd Al-Rahman Abdullah bin Habib bin Rabi’ah Al-Sulami Al-Dareer and on Abu Maryam Zirr bin Hubaysh ibn Habasha al-Asadi and Abu Amr Sa`d ibn Ilyas al-Shaybani. These three read on `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him. As-Sulami and Zirr also read on `Uthman ibn `Affan and `Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with them both. As-Sulami also read on Ubayy ibn Ka`b and Zayd ibn Thabit, may Allah be pleased with them both. (May Allah be pleased with them both) - and Ibn Mas`ud, Uthman, Ali, Ubayy and Zayd recited to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.))
  
  The chain
  of transmission of Ibn `Amir’s recitation is mentioned in An-Nashr fi al-Qira`at al-`Ashr, Part One, Page 144
  ((And Ad-Dhimari recited to the Imam of the people of Ash-Sham, Abu `Imran `Abdullah ibn `Amir ibn Yazid ibn Tamim ibn Rabi`ah Al-Yahsabi, so that is one hundred and thirty paths for Ibn `Amir.
  Ibn Amir read to Abu Hashim al-Mughirah ibn Abi Shihab Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Mughirah al-Makhzumi without disagreement among the scholars, and to Abu al-Darda’ Uwaimir ibn Zayd ibn Qays, according to what al-Hafiz Abu Amr and al-Dani have confirmed, and it is authentic to us from him. Al-Mughirah read to Uthman ibn Affan - may God be pleased with him. - And Uthman and Abu Darda’ read to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
  
  The chain of
  transmission of Nafi’s reading is mentioned in An-Nashr in the Ten Readings, Part One
  : ((And Nafi’ read to seventy of the Tabi’een, among them Abu Ja’far, Abd al-Rahman ibn Hurmuz al-A’raj, Muslim ibn Jundub, Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, Salih ibn Khawwat, Shaybah ibn Nasah, and Yazid ibn Roman. As for Abu Ja`far, he will come to those who read in his reading, and Al-A`raj read on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, Abu Hurairah, and Abdullah bin Ayyash bin Abi Rabia Al-Makhzumi, and Muslim, Shaybah, and Ibn Roman also read on the authority of Abdullah bin Ayyash bin Abi Rabia, and Shaybah heard the reading from Umar bin Al-Khattab, and Salih read on Abu Hurairah, and Al-Zuhri read on Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, and Saeed read on Ibn Abbas and Abu Hurairah, and Ibn Abbas, Abu Hurairah and Ibn Ayyash read on Ubayy bin Ka’b, and Ibn Abbas also read on Zaid bin Thabit, and Ubayy, Zaid and Umar - may Allah be pleased with them - read on the Messenger of Allah May God bless him and grant him peace.
  
  
  The chain of transmission of the reading of Ya`qub al-Hadrami is mentioned in al-Nashr fi al-Qira`at al-`Ashr, Part One, 186
  : And Ya`qub read on the authority of Abu al-Mundhir Sallam ibn Sulayman al-Muzani, their mawla al-Tawil, and on the authority of Shihab ibn Sharifah, and on the authority of Abu Yahya Mahdi ibn Maymun al-Ma`wali, and on the authority of Abu al-Ashhab Ja`far ibn Hayyan al-`Attaridi, and it was said that he read on the authority of Abu `Amr himself, and Sallam read on Asim Al-Kufi, and on Abu Amr, and their chain of transmission was presented, and Sallam also read on Abu Al-Mujshir Asim bin Al-Ajaj Al-Jahdari Al-Basri, and on Abu Abdullah Yunus bin Ubaid bin Dinar Al-Abqasi, their client Al-Basri, and they read on Al-Hasan bin Abi Al-Hasan Al-Basri, and his chain of transmission was presented, and Al-Jahdari also read on Sulayman Ibn Qatta al-Tamimi, their client from Basra, and he read on Abdullah bin Abbas, and Shihab read on Abu Abdullah Harun bin Musa al-Ataki al-A’war the grammarian, and on al-Mu’alla bin Isa, and Harun read on Asim al-Jahdari and Abu Amr with their chain of transmission, and Harun also read on Abdullah bin Abi Ishaq. Al-Hadrami, who is Abu Jadid Yaqub, and he read on Yahya bin Ya`mar and Nasr bin `Asim with their previously mentioned chain of transmission, and Al-Mu`alla read on `Asim Al-Jahdari with his chain of transmission, and Mahdi read on Shu`ayb bin Al-Hijab, and he read on Abu Al-`Aliyah Al-Riyahi, and his chain of transmission was previously mentioned, and Abu Al-Ashhab read on Abu Raja `Imran bin Milhan Al-Attaridi, and Abu Raja read it on Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, and Abu Musa read it on the Messenger of Allah - may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him and his family - and this is a chain of transmission that is extremely sound and high.
  
  As for the authentic Sunnah :
  1. The testimony of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, may Allah be pleased with him, on its being Qur'anic from the same narration (a testimony that the mudallis ignored)
  We read from Musnad of Imam Ahmad, may God have mercy on him, 20677: Abu Bakr bin Ayyash narrated to us, on the authority of Asim, on the authority of Zur, who said: I said to my father, Abdullah says about the two Mu’awwidhat. He said: We asked the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, about them. He said: It was said to me, so I said: So I say what he said. Waki’ narrated to us, Sufyan narrated to us, on the authority of Asim, on the authority of Zur, who said: I asked Ubayy bin Ka’b about the two Mu’awwidhat. He said: I asked the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, about them. He said: It was said to me, so I said to you, so say what my father said. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said to us: We say: Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi narrated to us, on the authority of Asim, on the authority of Zur, who said: Ubayy bin Ka’b narrated to me, who said: I asked the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, about the two Mu’awwidhat. He said: It was said to me, so I said: My father said. The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said to us: We say: Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi narrated to us, on the authority of Sufyan, on the authority of al-Zubayr bin Adi, on the authority of Abu Razin, on the authority of Zur bin Hubaish, on the authority of Ubayy bin Ka’b, similarly. Muhammad bin Ja’far narrated to us, Shu’bah, on the authority of Asim bin Bahdalah, on the authority of Zur, who said: I asked Ubayy about the two Mu’awwidhat. He said: I asked the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, about them. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) said: It was said to me, so I said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him ) commanded us, so we say: Affan told us, Hammad bin Salamah told us, Asim bin Bahdalah told us, on the authority of Zur bin Hubaish , who said: I said to Ubayy bin Ka'b: Ibn Mas'ud did not write the two Mu'awwidhat in his copy of the Qur'an, so he said: I bear witness that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) told me that Gabriel, peace be upon him, said to him: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak, so I said it, and he said: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, so I said it, so we say what the Prophet (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) said .
  
  2. The testimony of Jabir bin Abdullah Al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) .
  We read from Sunan al-Nasa’i, Book of Seeking Refuge 5441: Amr ibn Ali told us, he said: Badl told me, he said: Shaddad ibn Saeed Abu Talhah told us, he said: Saeed al-Jariri told us, he said: Abu Nadrah told us, on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah, he said: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said to me: Read, Jabir. I said: What should I read, may my father and mother be sacrificed for you, O Messenger of God? He said: Read: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak and Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind. So I recited them. He said: Recite them, and you will not recite anything like them.
  
  Imam Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Sahih and Da’if Sunan Al-Nasa’i, Part 11, Hadith No. 5441:
  (( Hasan Sahih , Al-Ta’liq Al-Raghib (2/226)))
  
  3. The testimony of Uqbah bin Amir, may Allah be pleased with him, The
  testimony of Uqbah bin Amir, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding the Qur’anic meaning of the two Mu’awwidhat, their virtue, the reason for their revelation, and how they were revealed :
  
  Sahih Muslim, Book of the Prayer of Travelers and Shortening It,
  Chapter on the Virtue of Reciting the two Mu’awwidhat
  814. Qutaybah bin Sa’id told us, Jarir told us, on the authority of Bayan, on the authority of Qays bin Abi Hazim, on the authority of Uqbah bin Amir, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: Have you not seen the verses that were revealed tonight, the likes of which have never been seen? Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak and say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind.
  
  Musnad Ahmad, Musnad Ash-Shamiyyin
  16845. Al-Walid bin Muslim told us, he said: Ibn Jabir told us, on the authority of Al-Qasim Abu Abd Al-Rahman, on the authority of Uqbah bin Amir, who said: While I was leading the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, through one of those passes, he said to me: O Uqbah, why don’t you ride? I respected the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Allah’s Messenger (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to me to ride his mount, then he said, “O Aqeeb, why don’t you ride?” I said, “I was afraid that it would be a sin.” So the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) got off and I rode for a while, then he rode and said, “O Aqeeb, should I not teach you two of the best surahs that people have ever recited?” I said, “Yes, O Messenger of Allah.” He said, “ Then recite to me: ‘Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak’ and ‘Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind.’ Then the prayer was called, and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) came forward and recited them, then he passed by me.”He said, "How do you see, Ya'qib? Read them every time you sleep and every time you wake up."
  
  Second: The consensus of the Companions on its being Qur’anic and on the copies of the Qur’an that Uthman, may God be pleased with him, copied, including Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him (and this is evidence of his retraction of this statement, as we will discuss later) :
  
  In the Book of the Qur’an by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani,
  ‘Abdullah told us, he said: Ahmad ibn Sinan told us, he said: ‘Abd al-Rahman told us, he said: Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Mus’ab ibn Sa’d, he said: “
  I found the people in unison when ‘Uthman burned the copies of the Qur’an, and they were amazed by that.” And he said: None of them denied that.
  Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, commented on this narration in the introduction to his interpretation, in the chapter on the collection of the Qur’an (( And this is a sound chain of transmission ))
  
  and also in the book Al-Masahif by Ibn Abi Dawud Al-Sijistani, may God have mercy on him, with a chain of transmission that Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, authenticated in the introduction to his interpretation
  : Abdullah told us, he said: My uncle told me, he said: Abu Raja’ told us, he said: Israel told us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Mus’ab bin Sa’d, he said: Uthman stood up and addressed the people and said: “O people, your covenant with your Prophet is For thirteen years you have been doubting the Qur’an and saying: “The recitation of Ubayy and the recitation of Abdullah.” A man would say: “By God, your recitation is not correct.” So I order every man among you to bring whatever he has of the Book of God with him, and bring it. A man would bring a piece of paper and a piece of leather with the Qur’an on it, until he had collected a large number of them. Then Uthman entered and called them. One by one, he asked them: Did you hear the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) dictate it to you? He said: Yes. When Uthman finished that, he said: Who is the most knowledgeable of people? They said: The scribe of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Zayd ibn Thabit. He said: Who is the most eloquent of people? They said: Saeed bin Al-Aas. Uthman said: Let Saeed dictate and Zaid write. So Zaid wrote, and he wrote copies of the Qur’an and distributed them among the people. I heard some of Muhammad’s companions say: He has done well .
  
  And from the book of the Mushafs by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani, may God have mercy on him, we also read
  Hadith No.: 34 (a suspended Hadith) He told us, Sahl ibn Salih told us, he said: Abu Dawud and Ya’qub told us, they said: Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Alqamah ibn Murthad, on the authority of Suwayd ibn Ghaflah, he said: Ali said about the Mushafs: “ If Uthman had not made it, I would have made it .”
  
  Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, said in his Tafsir, Part Eight:
  ((This is well-known among many of the reciters and jurists: that Ibn Mas’ud did not write the two Mu’awwidhat in his Mushaf, Perhaps he did not hear them from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and they were not transmitted to him in succession. Then perhaps he changed his statement to the statement of the group, for the Companions, may God be pleased with them, wrote them in the Imams’ copies of the Qur’an, and they distributed them to all regions in the same way, and to God be praise and thanks .
  
  Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in Fath al-Bari, commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an, Chapter on Compiling the Qur’an:
  ((His saying: (So Uthman sent to Hafsah to send us the scrolls so that we may copy them into the Qur’anic manuscripts) In the narration of Yunus ibn Yazid: “So he extracted the scroll that Abu Bakr had ordered Zaid to collect, so he copied from it Qur’anic manuscripts and sent them to the regions.” The difference between the scrolls and the Qur’an is that the scrolls are the separate pages on which the Qur’an was collected during the time of Abu Bakr, and they were separate surahs, each surah arranged with its verses separately, but some of them were not arranged one after the other. So when they were copied and some of them were arranged one after the other, they became a Qur’an. It was reported from Uthman that he only did that after he consulted the Companions. Ibn Abi Dawud narrated with a sound chain of transmission on the authority of Suwayd ibn Ghafla who said: “Ali said: Do not say anything about Uthman except good, for by God, he did not do what he did in the Qur’anic manuscripts except on the advice of a group of us.” He said: What do you say about this recitation? It has reached me that some of them say that my recitation is better than your recitation, and this is almost kufr. We said: So what do you think? He said: I think we should unite the people on one Mushaf so that there will be no division or disagreement. We said: What you think is good. Third: The return of Ibn Mas`ud (may Allah be pleased with him )
  
  from this opinion is proven by several pieces of evidence :
  
  1. The Qur’an with us today, including the two Mu`awwidhat, is transmitted by continuous chain of transmission from a group of the Companions, including Ibn Mas`ud (may Allah be pleased with him) himself, through a group of his students, such as Zur ibn Hubaish, Alqamah, Masruq, Sa`d ibn Ilyas, `Aasim ibn Damrah, and others (we have transmitted the chains of transmission above, which makes it unnecessary to repeat it).
  
  2. The consensus of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) on the Mushaf of `Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) (as we have transmitted above from the Book of the Mushafs by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani on the authority of Mus`ab ibn Sa`d and Suwayd ibn Ghafla (may Allah have mercy on them).
  
  3. The students of Ibn Mas`ud (may Allah be pleased with him) explicitly stated that the two Mu`awwidhat are Qur’anic :
  The Book of the Musannaf by Ibn Abi Shaybah, The Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an,
  Waki` narrated to us, Sufyan narrated to us, on the authority of al-A`mash, on the authority of Ibrahim, who said: I said to al-Aswad: Who The Qur’an: He said: Yes, meaning the two Mu’awwidhat .
  
  4. Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, stated the authenticity of the other readings of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them.
  We read from the book “The Virtues of the Qur’an” by Al-Qasim bin Salam, Part One:
  Abu Mu’awiyah narrated to us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority of Abu Wa’il, on the authority of Abdullah, who said: I have heard the recitation and found them to be close together, so recite as you have learned, and beware of disagreement and extremism, for it is like one of you saying: Come and go .
  
  Fourth: The Qur’an in our hands, including the two Mu’awwidhat, is based on the last reading of the Qur’an, which are the ten readings on which Abu Bakr, may God be pleased with him, compiled the Qur’an and with which Uthman, may God be pleased with him, copied the Qur’ans.
  
  In Al-Mustadrak Al-Hakim
  2857 - Ja`far bin Muhammad bin Nasir Al-Khaldi told us, on the authority of Ali bin Abdul Aziz Al-Baghawi, in Mecca, on the authority of Hajjaj bin Al-Munhal, who said: Hammad bin Salamah told us, on the authority of Qatada, on the authority of Al-Hasan, on the authority of Samurah, may God be pleased with him, who said: “The Qur’an was presented to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, in presentations.” They would say: This recitation of ours is the final presentation.
  
  Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, said in Al-Itqan, Part One
  : “Ibn Ashtah included in Al-Masahif and Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Fadha’il, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, on the authority of Ubaydah Al-Salmani, who said:The recitation that was presented to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, in the year in which he died is the recitation that people recite today.
  
  Ibn Ashtah narrated on the authority of Ibn Sirin who said: Gabriel used to debate with the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, once every year in the month of Ramadan. However, in the year in which he died, he debated with him twice. They think that our recitation should be the last debate.
  
  Al-Baghawi said in his commentary on the Sunnah:
  It is said that Zayd ibn Thabit witnessed the last presentation in which what was abrogated and what remained was explained, and he wrote it for the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and read it to him, and he used to teach it to the people until he died. For this reason, Abu Bakr and Umar relied on him in collecting it, and Uthman appointed him to write the copies of the Qur’an. In
  
  the book of the copies of the Qur’an by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani,
  Abdullah narrated to us, saying: Muhammad ibn Bashar narrated to us, he said: Abd al-A’la narrated to us, he said: Hisham narrated to us, on the authority of Muhammad, he said: “A man would recite until a man would say to his companion: ‘You have disbelieved in what you say.’ So that was reported to Uthman ibn Affan, and he felt that it was too much for him, so he gathered twelve men from Quraysh and the Ansar, among them Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Zayd ibn Thabit, and he sent to the quarter in Umar’s house in which was the Qur’an, and he would check with them
  .” Muhammad said: Kathir ibn Aflah narrated to me that he used to write for them, and sometimes they would disagree about something and delay it, so I asked: ‘Why did you delay it?’ He said: ‘I do not know.’ Muhammad said: ‘I had a suspicion about it, so do not make it certain. I thought that when they disagreed about something, they would delay it until they looked at the last one to come to the final presentation, and they would write it down according to his statement .’
  
  We read from the book Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Quran, Part One, Type Thirteen, History of the Qur’an and the Differences in the Mushafs:
  Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami said: The recitation of Abu Bakr and Umar was And Uthman, Zaid bin Thabit, the Muhajireen and the Ansar were one; they used to recite the general recitation, which is the recitation that the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - recited to Gabriel twice in the year in which he died, and Zaid had witnessed the final presentation and he used to recite it to the people until he died, and therefore Abu Bakr relied on him in his collection, and Uthman appointed him as the scribe of the Mushaf ))
  
  Fifth: The Mushaf (or rather the Mushafs) that Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him, copied for Uthman, may God be pleased with him, agreed with the Mushafs of the majority of the Companions, so there is no consideration if it differed from this Mushaf, since this Mushaf according to the final presentation
  
  is read in the explanation of the Sunnah by Imam al-Baghawi, may God have mercy on him, in the book of the Virtues of the Qur’an.
  It was narrated on the authority of Suwaid ibn Ghaflah, who said: I heard Ali ibn Abi Talib say: “Fear Allah, O people. Beware of extremism regarding Uthman and your saying: ‘He burned the copies of the Qur’an.’ By Allah, he did not burn them except in front of a group of us, the Companions of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, all of us.” So he said: “What do you say about this recitation about which the people differed?” A man will meet The man said: My recitation is better than your recitation, and my recitation is better than your recitation. This is similar to disbelief. We said: What is the opinion, O Commander of the Faithful? He said: I think that the people should agree on one copy of the Qur’an, because if you differ today, those after you will differ even more. We said: What an excellent opinion you have made. So he sent to Zayd ibn Thabit and Saeed bin Al-Aas, so he said: Let one of you write and the other dictate, and if you differ about something, then bring it to me, for we did not differ about anything in the Book of Allah except in one letter in Surat Al-Baqarah. Saeed said: The Ark, Surat Al-Baqarah, verse 248, and Zaid said: 0 The Ark. 0, so we brought it to Uthman, and he said: Write it The Ark, Surat Al-Baqarah, verse 248 Ali said: If I had been in charge of the one who was in charge
  
  of Uthman, I would have done what he did. We read in the book of the Qur’ans by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani, may God have mercy on him, the first part, the chapter on Uthman’s collection of the Qur’ans, may God have mercy on him
  . Al-Zuhri said: On that day, they differed about the Ark and the Taboo. The Quraysh said: the Ark, and Zaid said: the Taboo. Their difference was referred to Uthman, who said: Write it as the Ark, for it is in the language of the Quraysh. Abdullah told us: Muhammad bin Yahya told us: Yaqub bin Ibrahim bin Saad told us: My father told us, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Anas, with this: “
  
  The investigator Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut says in the margin of his investigation of the second part of Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ in the biography of Zayd bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him:
  ((Hafs: He is the son of Sulayman al-Asadi Abu Omar al-Bazzaz al-Kufi, the companion of Asim, and he is an imam in recitation, abandoned in hadith, and in the chapter on the authority of Suwayd bin Ghafla, he said: I heard Ali bin Abi Talib say: Fear God, O people, and beware of exaggeration in Uthman and your saying that he burned the copies of the Qur’an, for by God he did not burn them except in the presence of all of us, the companions of Muhammad. And in it, Uthman sent to Zayd bin Thabit and Sa’id bin al-Aas, and said: Let one of you write and the other dictate, and if you differ about something, then bring it to me, for we did not differ about anything in the Book of God except about one letter in Surat al-Baqarah, Sa’id said “the Ark” and Zayd said “the Taboo,” so we brought it to Uthman, and he said: Write it down.” The coffin. Ali said: “If I had been appointed as the one who appointed Uthman, I would have done the same as he did.” Al-Baghawi mentioned it in “Sharh al-Sunnah” 4/524, 525, and Ibn Abi Dawud narrated it in “al-Masahif”: 22, 23, and its chain of transmission is authentic, as al-Hafiz said in “al-Fath” 9/16 .
  

  Third: A general response to the lie that Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, did not write Al-Fatihah in his copy of the Qur’an .
  
  I will provide you with a previous response of mine to this lie.
  

  Narration:
  In the book Al-Durr Al-Manthur by Imam Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him:
  (And Abd bin Hamid and Muhammad bin Nasr Al-Marwazi narrated in the book “Prayer”, and Ibn Al-Anbari in “Al-Masahif” on the authority of Muhammad bin Sirin, that Ubayy bin Ka’b used to write “Al-Fatihah Al-Kitab” and “Al-Mu’awwidhatayn” and (O God, we worship You and O God, we ask for help) and Ibn Mas’ud did not write any of them, and Uthman bin Affan wrote (Al-Fatihah Al-Kitab) and (Al-Mu’awwidhatayn)
  
  and the chain of transmission of the hadith in full with the wording of the narration in full is as Ibn Shabbah, may God have mercy on him, narrated in Tarikh Al-Madinah, Part Three, Page 1009,
  Abd Al-A’la narrated to us, he said: Hisham narrated to us, on the authority of Muhammad: “That Ubayy bin Ka’b wrote them in his copy of the Qur’an, five of them, Umm Al-Kitab, And the two Mu'awwidhatayn, and the two Surahs, and Ibn Mas'ud left them all, and Ibn 'Affan wrote the Opening of the Book, and the two Mu'awwidhatayn, and left the two Surahs, and the Mushafs of the people of Islam are based on what 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, wrote, but as for what is other than that, it is discarded, and if a reader recites something other than what is in their Mushafs in the prayer or denies something from it, they consider his blood permissible after that. “He owes it.”
  
  
  The response:
  
  First: The narration is not authentic in its chain of transmission for a reason:
  the sending between Ibn Sirin and Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, so no narration is proven from him, so it is like a disconnected one.
  Ibn Sirin was born in the last two years of the caliphate of Uthman, may God be pleased with him.
  We read from the Biographies of the Nobles by Imam Al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him:
  ((Muhammad Ibn Sirin, the Imam, Sheikh of Islam, Abu Bakr Al-Ansari, Al-Ansi Al-Basri, the client of Anas Ibn Malik, the servant of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. His father was one of the captives of Jarjaraya, owned by Anas. Then he wrote to him for thousands of money, so he paid him and paid him the money for the writing before it was due. Anas refused to take it when he saw that Sirin’s money had increased from trade, and he hoped to inherit it. So he brought him to Umar, may God be pleased with him, who ordered him to pay the deferred amount in advance.
  Anas Ibn Sirin said: My brother Muhammad was born two years before the caliphate of Umar, and I was born a year after him.
  He heard from Abu Hurairah, Imran bin Husain, Ibn Abbas, Adi bin Hatim, Ibn Omar, Ubaidah Al-Salmani, Shuraih Al-Qadi, Anas bin Malik, and many others.
  Narrated from him: Qatada, Ayoub, Yunus bin Ubaid, Ibn Awn, Khalid Al-Hadhaa, Hisham bin Hassan, Awf Al-A'rabi, Qura bin Khalid, Mahdi bin Maimun, Jarir bin Hazim, Abu Hilal Muhammad bin Salim, Yazid bin Ibrahim Al-Tastari, Uqbah bin Abdullah Al-Asamm, Saeed bin Abi Aruba, Abu Bakr Salma Al-Hudhali, Hayyan bin Husain, Shabib bin Shaibah, Sulayman bin Al-Mughira, and Khalid bin Du'laj.
  Khalid bin Khidash said: Hammad told us, on the authority of Anas bin Sirin: My brother Muhammad was born two years before the end of the caliphate of Umar.
  Al-Hakim said: This is what I found in my book: Umar, and others said: Uthman.
  I said: The second is more likely, and if the first of the two had been the first, Ibn Sirin would have been at the same age as al-Hasan, and it is known that Muhammad was younger by a few years , but the first is supported by the statement of Aarem, on the authority of Hammad ibn Zayd: Ibn Sirin lived to be over eighty years old. The second is supported by the statement of Maysarah, on the authority of Ma’la ibn Hilal, who told us that Yunus ibn Ubayd said: Muhammad ibn Sirin died when he was seventy-eight years old.
  
  Second: The Quranic authenticity of Surat Al-Fatihah was proven by continuous transmission through the chains of transmission of the ten readings, which go back to a group of the companions of the Prophet, may God bless him
  and grant him peace, including Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him. The Quran that we have today is transmitted by continuous transmission through the ten readings, and the chains of transmission of these readings go back to a group of the companions, may God be pleased with them, including Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, and all of them recited the verse as we know it today in the Mushaf. The
  
  chain of transmission of Ibn Kathir’s recitation,
  we read in An-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Page 120
  : “And Al-Qist also recited, and Ma’ruf and Shibl, before the Sheikh of Mecca and its Imam in recitation, Abu Ma’bad, Abdullah ibn Kathir ibn ‘Amr ibn Abdullah ibn Zadhan ibn Fayrouzan ibn Hormuz ad-Dari al-Makki. This is the completion of seventy-three paths on the authority of Ibn Kathir.
  Ibn Kathir read on the authority of Abu al-Sa’ib Abdullah ibn al-Sa’ib ibn Abi al-Sa’ib al-Makhzumi, on the authority of Abu al-Hajjaj Mujahid ibn Jabr al-Makki, and on Dirbas, the client of Ibn Abbas. Abdullah ibn al-Sa’ib read on Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Umar ibn al-Khattab - may Allah be pleased with them - and Mujahid read on Abdullah ibn al-Sa'ib, and Dirbas read on his client Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Abbas read on Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Zayd ibn Thabit, and Ubayy, Zayd and Umar - may Allah be pleased with them - read on the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.))
  
  The chain of transmission of Abu Amr's reading,
  which we read in An-Nashr in the Ten Readings, Part One, page 133
  ((And Al-Susi and Al-Duri read on Abu Muhammad Yahya bin Al-Mubarak bin Al-Mughirah Al-Yazidi, and Al-Yazidi read on the Imam of Basra and its reciter Abu Amr Ziyad bin Al-Ala bin Ammar Al-Urayyan bin Abdullah bin Al-Hussain bin Al-Harith Al-Mazini Al-Basri, so that is one hundred and fifty-four paths on Abu Amr, and Abu Amr read to Abu Jaafar Yazid bin Al-Qaqa’, Yazid bin Ruman, Shaiba bin Nasah, Abdullah bin Katheer, Mujahid bin Jabr, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Abu Al-Aliyah Rafi’ bin Mihran Al-Riyahi, Humayd bin Qais Al-A’raj Al-Makki, Abdullah bin Abi Ishaq Al-Hadrami, and Ata’ bin Abi Rabah, Ikrimah ibn Khalid, Ikrimah the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhaysin, Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, Nasr ibn Asim, and Yahya ibn Ya`mur. The chain of transmission of Abu Ja`far will come, and the chain of transmission of Yazid ibn Ruman and Shaybah was presented in the recitation of Nafi`. The chain of transmission of Mujahid was presented in the recitation of Ibn Kathir. Al-Hasan recited On the authority of Hattan bin Abdullah Al-Raqashi and Abu Al-Aaliyah Al-Riyahi, and Hattan read on Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari, and Abu Al-Aaliyah read on Omar bin Al-Khattab, Ubayy bin Ka’b, Zaid bin Thabit, and Ibn Abbas, and Humayd read on Mujahid, and its chain of transmission was presented, and Abdullah bin Abi Ishaq read on Yahya bin Ya’mur and Nasr bin Asim, and Ata’ read on Abu Hurayrah, and his chain of transmission was presented, and Ikrimah ibn Khalid read on the companions of Ibn Abbas, and his chain of transmission was presented, and Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, read on Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Muhaysin read on Mujahid and Dirbas, and their chain of transmission was presented, and the chain of transmission of Asim will come, and Nasr ibn Asim and Yahya ibn Ya’mur read on Abu Al-Aswad, and Abu Al-Aswad read to Uthman and Ali - may Allah be pleased with them - and Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Zayd ibn Thabit, Uthman and Ali - may Allah be pleased with them - read to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.))
  
  The chain of transmission of the reading of Hamza Al-Zayyat,
  and we read in Al-Nashr in the Ten Readings, Part One, Page 165
  ((And Hamzah read to Abu Muhammad Sulayman ibn Mihran al-A’mash in a recital, and it was said: the letters only, and Hamzah also read to Abu Hamzah Humran ibn A’yan, and to Abu Ishaq Amr ibn Abdullah al-Sabi’i, and to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla, and to Abu Muhammad Talhah ibn Musarrif al-Yami, and to Abu Abdullah Jaafar al-Sadiq ibn Muhammad al-Baqir ibn Zayn al-Abidin Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib al-Hashemi, and al-A’mash and Talhah read on Abu Muhammad Yahya ibn Waththab al-Asadi, and Yahya read on Abu Shibl Alqamah ibn Qays, and on his nephew al-Aswad ibn Yazid ibn Qays, and on Zirr ibn Hubaysh, and on Zayd ibn Wahb, and on Ubaydah ibn Amr al-Salmani, and on Masruq ibn al-Ajda’, and Humran read on Abu al-Aswad al-Daylami, and his chain of transmission was presented, and on Ubayd ibn Nadlah, and Ubayd read on Alqamah, and Humran also read on al-Baqir, and Abu Ishaq read on Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, and on Zirr ibn Hubaysh, and their chain of transmission was presented, and on Asim ibn Damrah, and on Al-Harith ibn Abdullah Al-Hamadhani, and Asim and Al-Harith read on Ali, and Ibn Abi Laila read on Al-Minhal ibn Amr and others, and Al-Minhal read on Saeed ibn Jubayr, and its chain of transmission was presented, and Alqamah, Al-Aswad, Ibn Wahb, Masruq, and Asim ibn Damrah read And Al-Harith also read on Abdullah bin Masoud, and Jaafar Al-Sadiq read on his father Muhammad Al-Baqir, and Al-Baqir read on Zain Al-
  Abidin, and Zain Al-Abidin read on his father, the master of the youth of the people of Paradise, Al-Husayn, and Al-Husayn read on his father Ali bin Abi Talib, and Ali and Ibn Masoud - may God be pleased with them - read on the Messenger of God. May God bless him and grant him peace.))
  
  The chain of transmission of Asim’s recitation is mentioned
  in Al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Page 155.
  ((Hafs and Abu Bakr read on the Imam of Kufa and its reciter Abu Bakr Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud bin Bahdalah Al-Asadi, their client from Kufa. That is one hundred and twenty-eight paths for Asim. Asim read on Abu Abd Al-Rahman Abdullah bin Habib bin Rabi’ah Al-Sulami Al-Dareer and on Abu Maryam Zirr bin Hubaysh ibn Habasha al-Asadi and Abu Amr Sa`d ibn Ilyas al-Shaybani. These three read on `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him. As-Sulami and Zirr also read on `Uthman ibn `Affan and `Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with them both. As-Sulami also read on Ubayy ibn Ka`b and Zayd ibn Thabit, may Allah be pleased with them both. (May Allah be pleased with them both) - and Ibn Mas`ud, Uthman, Ali, Ubayy and Zayd recited to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.))
  
  The chain
  of transmission of Ibn `Amir’s recitation is mentioned in An-Nashr fi al-Qira`at al-`Ashr, Part One, Page 144
  ((And Ad-Dhimari recited to the Imam of the people of Ash-Sham, Abu `Imran `Abdullah ibn `Amir ibn Yazid ibn Tamim ibn Rabi`ah Al-Yahsabi, so that is one hundred and thirty paths for Ibn `Amir.
  Ibn Amir read to Abu Hashim al-Mughirah ibn Abi Shihab Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Mughirah al-Makhzumi without disagreement among the scholars, and to Abu al-Darda’ Uwaimir ibn Zayd ibn Qays, according to what al-Hafiz Abu Amr and al-Dani have confirmed, and it is authentic to us from him. Al-Mughirah read to Uthman ibn Affan - may God be pleased with him. - And Uthman and Abu Darda’ read to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
  
  The chain of
  transmission of Nafi’s reading is mentioned in An-Nashr in the Ten Readings, Part One
  : ((And Nafi’ read to seventy of the Tabi’een, among them Abu Ja’far, Abd al-Rahman ibn Hurmuz al-A’raj, Muslim ibn Jundub, Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, Salih ibn Khawwat, Shaybah ibn Nasah, and Yazid ibn Roman. As for Abu Ja`far, he will come to those who read in his reading, and Al-A`raj read on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, Abu Hurairah, and Abdullah bin Ayyash bin Abi Rabia Al-Makhzumi, and Muslim, Shaybah, and Ibn Roman also read on the authority of Abdullah bin Ayyash bin Abi Rabia, and Shaybah heard the reading from Umar bin Al-Khattab, and Salih read on Abu Hurairah, and Al-Zuhri read on Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, and Saeed read on Ibn Abbas and Abu Hurairah, and Ibn Abbas, Abu Hurairah and Ibn Ayyash read on Ubayy bin Ka’b, and Ibn Abbas also read on Zaid bin Thabit, and Ubayy, Zaid and Umar - may Allah be pleased with them - read on the Messenger of Allah May God bless him and grant him peace.
  
  
  The chain of transmission of the reading of Ya`qub al-Hadrami is mentioned in al-Nashr fi al-Qira`at al-`Ashr, Part One, 186
  : And Ya`qub read on the authority of Abu al-Mundhir Sallam ibn Sulayman al-Muzani, their mawla al-Tawil, and on the authority of Shihab ibn Sharifah, and on the authority of Abu Yahya Mahdi ibn Maymun al-Ma`wali, and on the authority of Abu al-Ashhab Ja`far ibn Hayyan al-`Attaridi, and it was said that he read on the authority of Abu `Amr himself, and Sallam read on Asim Al-Kufi, and on Abu Amr, and their chain of transmission was presented, and Sallam also read on Abu Al-Mujshir Asim bin Al-Ajaj Al-Jahdari Al-Basri, and on Abu Abdullah Yunus bin Ubaid bin Dinar Al-Abqasi, their client Al-Basri, and they read on Al-Hasan bin Abi Al-Hasan Al-Basri, and his chain of transmission was presented, and Al-Jahdari also read on Sulayman Ibn Qatta al-Tamimi, their client from Basra, and he read on Abdullah bin Abbas, and Shihab read on Abu Abdullah Harun bin Musa al-Ataki al-A’war the grammarian, and on al-Mu’alla bin Isa, and Harun read on Asim al-Jahdari and Abu Amr with their chain of transmission, and Harun also read on Abdullah bin Abi Ishaq. Al-Hadrami, who is Abu Jadid Yaqub, and he read on Yahya bin Ya`mar and Nasr bin `Asim with their previously mentioned chain of transmission, and Al-Mu`alla read on `Asim Al-Jahdari with his chain of transmission, and Mahdi read on Shu`ayb bin Al-Hijab, and he read on Abu Al-`Aliyah Al-Riyahi, and his chain of transmission was previously mentioned, and Abu Al-Ashhab read on Abu Raja `Imran bin Milhan Al-Attaridi, and Abu Raja read on Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, and Abu Musa read on the Messenger of Allah - may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him and his family - and this is a chain of transmission that is extremely sound and high.
  This indicates the belief of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) in the Quranic nature of Al-Fatihah, as he is one of those to whom the chains of transmission of the Quran are traced back today .
  
  Third: The Quranic nature of Al-Fatihah has been proven by the authentic Sunnah . 4426 Muhammad ibn Bashar narrated to me, Ghundar narrated to us, Shu’bah narrated to us
  , on the authority of Khabib ibn Abd al-Rahman
  ,
  on the authority of Hafs ibn Asim, on the authority of Abu Sa’id ibn al-Mu’alla, who said: The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, passed by me while I was praying, so he called me, but I did not come to him until I had prayed, then I came and he said: What prevented you from coming to me? I said: I was praying. He said: Did not Allah say: O you who believe, respond to Allah and the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life? Then He said: Shall I not teach you the greatest Surah in the Qur’an before I leave the mosque? The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went to leave the mosque, but I reminded him, so he said: Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. It is the seven oft-repeated verses and the great Qur’an which I have been given .
  
  We read in Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapters on the Description of Prayer
  3: Ali ibn Abdullah narrated to us, Sufyan narrated to us, al-Zuhri narrated to us, on the authority of Mahmud ibn al-Rabi’, on the authority of Ubadah ibn al-Samit, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: There is no prayer for the one who does not recite the Opening of the Book.
  
  And in Sahih Muslim, the Book of Prayer.
  8 395 And Ishaq bin Ibrahim Al-Hanthali narrated to us, Sufyan bin Uyaynah narrated to us, on the authority of Al-Ala’, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, on the authority of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, who said: Whoever prays a prayer in which he does not recite the Mother of the Qur’an, it is incomplete three times. It was said to Abu Hurairah: We are behind the imam, so he said: Recite it to yourself, for I heard the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, say: God Almighty said: I have divided the prayer between Me and My servant into two halves, and My servant will have what he asks for. So when the servant says: Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds, God Almighty says: My servant has praised Me. And when he says: The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, God Almighty says: My servant has extolled Me. And when he says: Master of the Day of Judgment, My servant has glorified Me. And once He said: My servant has entrusted to Me. So when he says: You alone do we worship, and You alone do we ask for help, He says: This is between Me and My servant, and My servant will have what he asks for. So when he says: Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who have gone astray, He says: This is for My servant, and My servant will have what he asks for .
  
  And we read from Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an, on the authority of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, Chapter on what was said about the virtue of the Opening of the Book
  2875 Qutaybah narrated to us, Abd al-Aziz ibn Muhammad narrated to us, on the authority of al-Ala’ ibn Abd al-Rahman, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out to Ubayy ibn Ka’b and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “O my father, while he was praying.” My father turned and did not answer him, and my father prayed and then shortened his prayer and then turned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, “Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah.” The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “And upon you be peace.” What prevented you, O my father, from answering me when I called you?” He said, “O Messenger of Allah, I was praying.” He said, “Did you not find among what Allah revealed to me that you should respond to Allah and the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life?” He said, “Yes, and I will not return, Allah willing.” He said, “ Would you like me to teach you a surah the like of which was not revealed in the Torah, nor in the Gospel, nor in the Psalms, nor in the Criterion?” He said, “Yes, O Messenger of Allah.” The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “How do you recite in prayer?” He said, “So he recited the Mother of the Qur’an.” The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, it was not revealed in the Torah.” And there is none like it in the Gospel, nor in the Psalms, nor in the Criterion. And they are seven of the oft-repeated verses, and the great Qur’an which I have been given. Abu ‘Eesa said: This is a good and authentic hadith. In this chapter, there is a hadith on the authority of Anas ibn Malik, and in it there is a hadith on the authority of Abu Sa’id ibn al-Mu’alla
  . Al-Albani said in Sahih wa Da’if Sunan al-Tirmidhi: (( Sahih , Sahih Abi Dawud (1310), al-Mishkat (2142/the second investigation), al-Ta’liq al-Raghib (2/216))
  
  Fourth: Assuming the authenticity of the narration, Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him, did not deny that al-Fatihah was in the Qur’an, because all he did was not write it in his copy of the Qur’an. It has been proven that he recited it to his students, among them Zur ibn Hubaish.
  This is proven in several ways:
  1. It has been reported from him that he did not write al-Fatihah in his copy of the Qur’an, and he did not deny that it was in the Qur’an.
  We read in the interpretation of Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, the first part:
  ((Al-A’mash narrated on the authority of Ibrahim, who said: It was said to Ibn Mas’ud: Why did you not write Al-Fatihah in your Mushaf? He said: If you had written it, you would have written it at the beginning of every Surah . Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Dawud said: He means where it is recited in prayer. He said: And I was satisfied with the Muslims memorizing it instead of writing it. ))
  This narration is weak because Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i, may God have mercy on him, did not meet Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him, but it is an argument for those who are stubborn and rely on weak narrations, and in it is Ibn Mas’ud’s, may God be pleased with him, explicit statement about the Qur’anic nature of Al-Fatihah
  
  . Al-Qurtubi narrated in the first part of his interpretation on the authority of Al-Anbari, may God have mercy on him, good words in which he explains this narration:
  ((The Ummah also agreed that it is part of the Qur’an. If it is said: If it was part of the Qur’an, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud would have included it in his Mushaf. Since he did not include it, this indicates that it is not part of the Qur’an, like the two Mu’awwidhat according to him.
  The answer is what Abu Bakr al-Anbari mentioned. He said: Al-Hasan ibn al-Habbab told us. Sulayman ibn al-Ash’ath told us. Ibn Abi Qudamah told us. Jarir told us, on the authority of al-A’mash. I think it was on the authority of Ibrahim. It was said to Abdullah ibn Mas’ud: Why did you not write the Opening of the Book in your Mushaf? He said: If you had written it, you would have written it with every Surah. Abu Bakr said: Meaning that every Rak’ah should begin with the Mother of the Qur’an before the Surah recited after it. He said: I have shortened it by omitting it, and I am confident that the Muslims have memorized it, and I have not included it in a place, so I am obliged to write it with every Surah, since it precedes it in prayer .))
  
  2. It is proven from him that he explicitly stated the correctness of the recitation of the rest of the Companions, and they recited
  the Opening of the Book in the Virtues of the Qur’an by Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Salam, Part One Abu Mu’awiyah narrated to us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority
  of Abu Wa’il, on the authority of Abdullah, who said : “I heard the recitation and found them to be close together, so recite as you have learned , and beware of disagreement and exaggeration, for it is like one of you saying: ‘Come here.’”
  
  3. It is proven that Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him, recited Al-Fatihah and taught it to his students, as in the chains of transmission of the ten recitations (which we mentioned above) .
  
  4. It was proven from Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, that he interpreted the words of God
  Almighty: ((And We have given you seven of the oft-repeated verses)) as the seven verses of Surat Al-Fatihah. We read from the interpretation of Al-Tabari, may God have mercy on him:
  ((Abu Kurayb and Ibn Wakee’ told us, they said: Ibn Idris told us, he said: Hisham told us, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, he said : Ibn Masoud was asked about seven of the oft-repeated verses, he said: The Opening of the Book. Ya’qub told me, he said: Ibn Ulayyah told us, he said: Yunus told us, on the authority of Al-Hasan, regarding His words (And We have given you seven of the oft-repeated verses)) he said: The Opening of the Book. He said: Ibn Sirin said from Ibn Masoud: It is the Opening of the Book.
  Al-Muthanna told me, he said: Amr ibn Awn told us, he said: Hisham told us, on the authority of Yunus, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, on the authority of Ibn Masoud (seven of the oft-repeated verses)) he said: The Opening of the Book .))
  
  Fifth: It was proven from the Companions that they recited the Qur’an that exists today and agreed upon it with what Among them is Ibn Mas`ud, may God be pleased with him,
  in the Book of the Qur’an by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani.
  He said: `Abdullah told us, he said: Ahmad ibn Sinan told us, he said: `Abd al-Rahman told us, he said: Shu`bah told us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Mus`ab ibn Sa`d, he said: “ I found the people in great numbers when `Uthman burned the Qur’an, and they were amazed by that, and he said: None of them denounced that .”
  Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, commented on this narration in the introduction to his interpretation, in the chapter on the collection of the Qur’an: “And this Authentic chain of transmission))
  
  and also in the book Al-Masahif by Ibn Abi Dawood Al-Sijistani, may God have mercy on him, with a chain of transmission authenticated by Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, in the introduction to his interpretation.
  Abdullah told us: My uncle told us: Abu Raja told us: Israel told us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Mus`ab bin Sa`d, who said: Uthman stood up and addressed the people and said: “O people, your covenant with your Prophet has been thirteen years and you are still doubting the Qur’an and saying: ‘The recitation of Ubayy and the recitation of Abdullah’. He says: The man said: By Allah, your recitation is not good, so I order every man among you to bring whatever he has of the Book of Allah with him. A man would bring a piece of paper or leather containing the Qur’an, until he had collected a large number of them. Then Uthman entered and called them one by one and asked them: Did you hear the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) dictate it to you? He would say: Yes. When Uthman finished that, he said: Who is the most knowledgeable of the people? They said: The scribe of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, Zayd ibn Thabit. He said: Who is the most eloquent of the people? They said: Sa`id ibn al-`As. Uthman said: Let Sa`id dictate and Zayd write. So Zayd wrote, and he wrote copies of the Qur’an and distributed them among the people. I heard some of the companions of Muhammad say: He has done well.
  
  Also from the same source,
  hadith number 37
  (A disconnected hadith) Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Sawwaf narrated to us, saying: Yahya ibn Kathir narrated to us, saying: Thabit ibn ‘Umarah al-Hanafi narrated to us, saying: I heard Ghunaim ibn Qays al-Mazini say: “I read the Qur’an according to both letters, and by God, it would not please me that ‘Uthman did not write the Mushaf, and that a boy was born to every Muslim every morning.” So he had the same as he had.” He said: We said to him: O Abu Al-Anbar, why? He said: “ If Uthman had not written the Qur’an, people would have started reading poetry.”
  
  And from the same source also,
  Hadith No.: 38
  (a disconnected Hadith) Yaqub bin Sufyan told us, he said: Muhammad bin Abdullah told us, Imran bin Hudayr told me, on the authority of Abu Mijlaz, he said: “Had Uthman not written the Qur’an, I would have found the people reading poetry
  . ”
  And also from the same source,
  Hadith No.: 34
  (A suspended Hadith) Sahl bin Salih narrated to us, he said: Abu Dawud and Ya`qub narrated to us, they said: Shu`bah informed us, on the authority of Alqamah bin Marthad, on the authority of Suwayd bin Ghafla, he said: Ali said in the Mushafs: “If Uthman had not made it, I would have made it .” Abu Dawud said: On the authority of a man, on the authority of Suwayd.
  
  Sixth: Al-Fatihah was among the surahs that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited in the final presentation, which our copies of the Qur’an today are based on
  in Al-Hakim’s Mustadrak.
  2857 - Ja`far ibn Muhammad ibn Nasir al-Khaldi informed us, on the authority of `Ali ibn `Abd al-`Aziz al-Baghawi, in Mecca, on the authority of Hajjaj ibn al-Munhal, who said: Hammad ibn Salamah told us, on the authority of Qatadah, on the authority of al-Hasan, on the authority of Samurah, may God be pleased with him, who said: “ The Qur’an was presented to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, in several presentations.” They would say: This recitation of ours is the last presentation.
  
  Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, said in al-Itqan, part one
  : “Ibn Ashtah included in al-Masahif and Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Fadha’il, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, on the authority of `Ubaydah al-Salmani, who said: The recitation that was presented to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, in the year The one in which he died is the recitation that people recite today.
  Ibn Ashtah narrated on the authority of Ibn Sirin who said: Jibreel used to debate with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) once every year in the month of Ramadan. However, in the year in which he died, he debated with him twice, and they think that this recitation of ours should be the last recitation.
  He said : Al-Baghawi in Sharh as-Sunnah: It is said that Zayd ibn Thabit witnessed the last presentation in which what was abrogated and what remained was explained, and he wrote it for the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and read it to him, and he used to teach it to the people until he died. For this reason, Abu Bakr and Umar relied on him in collecting it, and Uthman appointed him to write the copies of the Qur’an. In
  
  the book of the copies of the Qur’an by Ibn Abi Dawud as-Sijistani,
  Abdullah narrated to us, he said: Muhammad ibn Bashar narrated to us, He said: Abd al-A’la told us, he said: Hisham told us, on the authority of Muhammad, he said: “A man would recite until another man would say to his companion: ‘You have disbelieved in what you say.’ So that was reported to Uthman ibn Affan, and he felt that it was too much for him, so he gathered twelve men from Quraysh and the Ansar, among them Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Zayd ibn Thabit, and he sent to the quarter that was in Umar’s house in which was the Qur’an, and he would check on them
  .” Muhammad said: Kathir ibn Aflah told me that he used to write for them, and sometimes they would disagree about something and delay it, so I asked: Why do you delay it? He said: I do not know. Muhammad said: So I had a suspicion about it, so do not make it certainty. I thought that if they differed about something, they would postpone it until they looked for the last one to come to the final presentation, and they would write it according to his statement. Seventh
  
  : The same narration that Ibn Shabbah brought out clearly states that the Mushaf of Uthman is identical to the Mushaf of Umar and the rest of the Mushafs of the Muslims, and in it are Al-Fatihah and Al-Mu’awwidhatayn.
  History of Madinah by Ibn Shabbah, Part Three:
  Abd Al-A’la told us, he said: Hisham told us, on the authority of Muhammad: “That Ubayy ibn Ka’b wrote five of them in his Mushaf, Al-Umm Al-Kitab, Al-Mu’awwidhatayn, and the two Surahs, and he left them out.” Ibn Mas`ud wrote all of them, and Ibn `Affan wrote the opening chapter of the Book and the two Mu`awwidhat, and left out the two Surahs. The Mushafs of the people of Islam are based on what `Umar, may God be pleased with him, wrote .As for anything other than that, it is rejected. If a reciter recites something other than what is in their copies of the Qur’an during prayer, or denies something from it, they consider his blood permissible after he has committed a sin.

  Fourth: The response to Al-Munsir’s stupidity in the scholars’ disagreement over the authenticity of the narration of Ibn Masoud (may Allah be pleased with him) reciting the two Mu’awwidhat from his copy of the Qur’an .
  
  Some scholars weakened the narration mentioned in Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), and Al-Munsir accused them of lying. The response:
  
  First: This is the very definition of slander, as a flag may be authentic according to one scholar and not according to another, and the narration of Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad may appear to one scholar and not reach another, and this is the very definition of deception, to accuse others of lying when they have not received evidence of the authenticity of the narration.
  
  Second: What Al-Munsir transmitted from Imam Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) about declaring as an unbeliever whoever denies a letter of the Qur’an is rejected and does not apply to Ibn Masoud (may Allah be pleased with him) for two reasons:
  
  1. Ibn Masoud (may Allah be pleased with him) retracted this statement, as we explained previously.
  2. What Al-Munsir himself transmitted from the words of Ibn Al-Jawzi, may God have mercy on him, from his book Al-Mushkil li-ma fi Al-Sahihayn.
  We read from the book Al-Mushkil li-ma fi Al-Sahihayn, Part Two, Kashf
  Al-Mushkil from Musnad Abi bin Ka’b: “So he said: ‘It was said to me, so I said.’ So we say as the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said. [15] What he referred to from the words of Ibn Mas’ud is as if it is an indication that he did not record it in his copy of the Qur’an and did not consider it part of the Qur’an. And his saying: ‘It was said to me, so I said.’ is evidence that it is part of the revelation, and the matter was open to interpretations in the time of Ibn Mas’ud, but now it has become established. Consensus. )) 3. A group of scholars did not deny the hadith, but rather they interpreted it, as they limited Ibn Masoud’s denial, may God be pleased with him, to their writing in the Mushaf, not their being Qur’anic .
  
  (And although we do not tend towards this, it has a point.)
  We read from Irshad al-Sari in the explanation of Sahih al-Bukhari by al-Qastalani, may God have mercy on him, the book of Tafsir al-Quran, Part Seven:
  ((This is well-known among many readers and jurists that Ibn Mas`ud did not write them in his Mushaf. Therefore, al-Nawawi’s statement in his explanation of al-Muhadhdhab: The Muslims agreed that the two Mu`awwidhatayn and al-Fatihah are from the Qur’an and that whoever denies any of them is a disbeliever. What was transmitted from Ibn Mas`ud is false and not correct and is questionable, as was pointed out in al-Fath, as it contains an attack on the authentic narrations without any basis and is not acceptable. Therefore, resorting to interpretation is more appropriate. Judge Abu Bakr al-Baqillani interpreted this as Ibn Mas`ud did not deny their being Qur’anic, but rather denied their being established in the Mushaf, as he believed that nothing should be written in the Mushaf unless the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, had given permission to write it in it, as if permission had not reached him, so there is no denial of their being Qur’anic. He followed up with the previous explicit narration in which it is stated that they are not from the Book of God.
  
  
  I respond: It is possible to carry the wording The Book of Allah is on the Mushaf, so the aforementioned interpretation is in line with what he said in Fath al-Bari. It is also possible that he did not hear them from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and they were not transmitted to him in succession. Then perhaps he retracted his statement to the statement of the group, as the Companions agreed upon them and included them in the Mushafs that they sent to all horizons. However
  
  , what is correct, as we mentioned, is that Ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, retracted this and consensus was achieved, as we quoted above.
  We read from the book Al-Kawakib Al-Durari by Al-Karmani, may Allah have mercy on him, in his explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, the eighteenth part, the book of the virtues of the Qur’an:
  “ This was one of the things about which the Companions differed, then the disagreement was resolved and consensus was reached on it. So if someone today denies its being Qur’anic, he is a disbeliever. ”Some of them said that the issue was not in their Quranic nature, but in one of their attributes and a particular one of their special characteristics. There is no doubt that this narration includes both of them, and it is more appropriate to bear it, and God Almighty knows best.
  
  The claim that the issue is weak or interpreted (even if there is a reason for interpretation) is not our path, but rather it is proven that Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, retracted this claim, and we have conveyed the conclusive evidence for that .
  
  Fifth: Al-Munsir’s deception regarding Sheikh Abdullah Hamad’s quotation in his book The Holy Quran and the Doubts of Orientalists: A Critical Reading .
  
  The liar mentioned the words of Professor Abdullah Hamad when he transmitted the words of Imam Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, about the satisfaction of Ibn Masoud and his retraction of what he said, except that Al-Mansir accused Professor Abdullah - falsely - of lying in the transmission and brought the comment of Imam Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, in his book, The Virtues of the Qur’an, on the narration that Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Dawood, may God have mercy on him, included in his book, The Mushafs, that it does not necessarily indicate the return of Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, and this is a deception from more than one aspect:
  
  First: The words that he transmitted were said by Ibn Kathir, not as a denial of the return of Ibn Masoud, but rather as a denial of Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Dawood’s interpretation of the narration, may God have mercy on him.
  
  Second: Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, mentioned what Dr. Abdullah Hamad said word for word .
  We read from the book “The Virtues of the Qur’an” by Ibn Kathir, Part One, Chapter on the Writing of the Qur’an by Uthman ibn Affan
  (may Allah be pleased with him): Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri said: Kharijah ibn Zayd ibn Thabit informed me, he heard Zayd ibn Thabit “said”1: He said: A verse from Al-Ahzab was lost when we copied the Qur’an. I used to hear the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) reciting it, so we looked for it and found it with Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: {Among the believers are men true to what they promised Allah}, so we included it in its surah “in the Qur’an”2.
  This is also one of the greatest virtues of the Commander of the Faithful Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him).
  The two sheikhs preceded him in memorizing the Qur’an so that nothing of it would be lost, which is to gather the people on one reading so that they would not differ in the Qur’an, and all the companions agreed with him on that. It was only narrated from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud something of anger because of He was not one of those who wrote the Qur’an, and he ordered his companions to lock up their Qur’an when Uthman ordered the burning of everything except the Imam’s Qur’an. Then Ibn Mas’ud returned to the agreement, until Ali ibn Abi Talib said: If Uthman had not done that, I would have done it. Third
  
  : The response to Ibn Mas’ud’s objection, may God be pleased with him, to the burning of the Qur’an .
  
  I say before anything else that Ibn Mas’ud’s objection, may God be pleased with him, did not stem from his denial of reading the Uthmanic Qur’an, as we have proven, but rather his objection was directed towards the sufficiency of reading the last presentation, as he, may God be pleased with him, believed that the seven letters were revealed for ease and that their ruling remains and that it is permissible for a Muslim to read everything that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, read.
  
  Here is a previous response of mine to this doubt.
  

  Narrations
  Sahih Muslim Book of the Virtues of the Companions
  2462 Narrated to us Ishaq bin Ibrahim Al-Hanthali narrated to us Abdah bin Sulayman narrated to us Al-A’mash narrated to us from Shaqiq from Abdullah that he said: And whoever commits fraud will come with what he has committed on the Day of Resurrection. Then he said: In whose recitation do you order me to recite? I have recited to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, seventy-odd Surahs. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, knew that I was the most knowledgeable of them about the Book of Allah. If I knew that anyone was more knowledgeable than me, I would have traveled to him. Shaqiq said: So I sat in the circles of the Companions of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and I did not hear anyone refute that or criticize it.
  The Mushafs of Ibn Abi Dawud Al-Sijistani
  narrated to us Abdullah, he said: Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Al-Nu’man narrated to us, he said: Saeed bin Sulayman narrated to us, he said: Abu Al-Shihab narrated to us, from Al-A’mash, from Abu Wa’il, he said: Ibn Mas’ud delivered a sermon to us on the pulpit and said: “And whoever commits fraud will come with what he has committed on the Day of Resurrection. Fraud your Mushafs, and how do you order me to recite according to the recitation of Zayd bin Thabit, when I have recited from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” Allah’s Messenger (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Seventy-odd surahs, and Zaid ibn Thabit would come with the boys who had two locks of hair. By Allah, nothing of the Qur’an was revealed except that I knew in what it was revealed. No one knows more about the Book of Allah than I do, and I am not the best of you
  . If I knew a place that camels could reach that was more knowledgeable about the Book of Allah than I, I would go there.” Abu Wa’il said: When he came down from the pulpit, I sat among the people and no one denied what he said.
  Muhammad ibn Yahya told us: Ahmad ibn Yunus and Sa’id ibn Sulayman told us: Abu Shihab told us this.
  Ahmad ibn Mansur ibn Sayyar told us: Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Yunus told us: Abu Shihab told us this
  . Abdullah told us, he said: Harun bin Ishaq told us, he said: Abdah told us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority of Shuqaiq, he said: Abdullah said: “And whoever embezzles will come with what he embezzled on the Day of Resurrection, as if he had read. Whoever orders me to read, I have read to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, seventy-odd surahs, and the companions of Muhammad knew that I was the most knowledgeable of them about the Book of God. If I knew that anyone was more knowledgeable about the Book of God than me, I would have traveled to him.” Shaqiq said: “I sat with a group of the companions of Muhammad, and I did not hear any of them criticize him for anything he said, nor did he reject it.”
  Abdullah told us, he said: Ibrahim bin Abdullah bin Abi Shaybah told us, he said: Ibn Abi Ubaidah told us, he said: My father told us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority of Abi Razin, on the authority of Zur bin Hubaish, he said: Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “I have recited from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, seventy-odd surahs, and Zayd bin Thabit has two locks of hair
  .” Abdullah told us, he said: Muhammad bin Bashar told us, he said: Abd Al-Rahman told us, he said: Ibrahim bin Sa’d told us, on the authority of Al-Zuhri, he said: Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah told me that Abdullah bin Mas’ud disliked Zayd bin Thabit’s copying of the Qur’an, so he said: “O group of Muslims, remove him from the task of copying the Qur’an and appoint a man to take charge of it. By Allah, I have become Muslim, and he is still a disbeliever in the loins of his father, meaning Zayd bin Thabit.” Abdullah also said: “O people of Kufa or O people of Iraq, conceal the Qur’an.” Which you have, and its exaggeration, for God says: And whoever commits extortion will bring what he has extorted on the Day of Resurrection. So meet God with the copies of the Qur’an.
  Response:
  #chain of
  narration #first
  #narration #second #authentic by the two followed paths
  , and so are the third, fourth, and fifth.
  #text :
  In response to this statement, we say:
  #First: It is established that he did not challenge the Uthmanic readings, but rather objected to the fact that the one who headed the committee was Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him, and that he was removed from the copies of the Qur’an
  . This matter is evident from the following aspects:
  1. The words of the narration that explicitly states this :
  ((He disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Qur’an, so he said: “O group of Muslims, he was removed from the copying of the Qur’an book and given charge of it by a man, by God, I converted to Islam and he was a disbeliever in the loins of his father,” meaning Zaid bin Thabit.))
  2. That Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, himself read according to the Uthmanic reading of the Qur’an,
  as is evident from the chains of transmission of the ten readings, the chain of transmission
  of the reading of Abu Amr,
  and we read in Al-Nashr fi Al-Qira’at Al-‘Ashr, Part One, Page 133
  : ((And Al-Susi and Al-Duri read on Abu Muhammad Yahya bin Al-Mubarak bin Al-Mughirah Al-Yazidi, and he read Al-Yazidi on the Imam of Basra and its reciter Abu Amr Ziyad ibn al-Ala’ ibn Ammar al-Urayyan ibn Abdullah ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Harith al-Mazini al-Basri, so that is one hundred and fifty-four paths on Abu Amr, and Abu Amr read on Abu Ja’far Yazid ibn al-Qa’qa’, Yazid ibn Ruman, and Shaybah ibn Nisah, Abdullah bin Katheer, Mujahid bin Jabr, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Abu Al-Aaliyah Rafi’ bin Mihran Al-Riyahi, Humayd bin Qais Al-A’raj Al-Makki, Abdullah bin Abi Ishaq Al-Hadrami, Ata’ bin Abi Rabah, Ikrimah bin Khalid, Ikrimah the client of Ibn Abbas, and Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman bin Muhaisin, Asim ibn Abi Al-Najoud, Nasr ibn Asim, and Yahya ibn Ya`mur. The chain of transmission of Abu Ja`far will come, and the chain of transmission of Yazid ibn Ruman and Shaybah was presented in the recitation of Nafi`. The chain of transmission of Mujahid was presented in the recitation of Ibn Kathir. Al-Hasan read on the authority of Hittan ibn Abdullah Al-Raqashi and Abu Al-`Aliyah Al-Riyahi, and Hittan read on the authority of Abu Musa. Al-Ash'ari, and Abu Al-Aaliyah read on the authority of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Zayd ibn Thabit, and Ibn Abbas, and Humayd read on the authority of Mujahid, and his chain of transmission was presented, and Abdullah ibn Abi Ishaq read on the authority of Yahya ibn Ya'mur and Nasr ibn Asim, and Ata' read on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, and his chain of transmission was presented, and Ikrimah ibn Khalid read on the authority of The companions of Ibn Abbas, and his chain of transmission was presented. Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, read to Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Muhaysin read to Mujahid and Dirbas, and their chain of transmission was presented, and the chain of transmission of Asim will come, and Nasr Ibn Asim and Yahya Ibn Ya`mur read to Abu al-Aswad, and Abu al-Aswad read to Uthman and Ali - may Allah be pleased with them - and Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Zayd ibn Thabit, Uthman and Ali - may God be pleased with them - upon the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace.))
  The chain of transmission of Hamza al-Zayyat's recitation
  And we read in Al-Nashr in the Ten Readings, Part One, Page 165
  : “And Hamzah read to Abu Muhammad Sulayman ibn Mihran Al-A’mash by way of presentation, and it was said: the letters only, and Hamzah also read to Abu Hamzah Humran ibn A’yan, and to Abu Ishaq Amr ibn Abdullah Al-Sabi’i, and to Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla, and to Abu Muhammad Talhah ibn Musarrif.” Al-Yami, and on Abu Abdullah Ja’far al-Sadiq ibn Muhammad al-Baqir ibn Zayn al-Abidin Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib al-Hashemi, and al-A’mash and Talhah read on Abu Muhammad Yahya ibn Waththab al-Asadi, and Yahya read on Abu Shibl Alqamah ibn Qays, and on his nephew al-Aswad ibn Yazid ibn Qays, And on Zirr ibn Hubaysh, and on Zayd ibn Wahb, and on Ubaydah ibn Amr al-Salmani, and on Masruq ibn al-Ajda’, and Humran read on Abu al-Aswad al-Daylami, and his chain of transmission was presented, and on Ubayd ibn Nadlah, and Ubayd read on Alqamah, and Humran also read on al-Baqir, and Abu Ishaq read on Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, And on Zirr ibn Hubaysh, and their chain of transmission was presented, and on Asim ibn Damrah, and on Al-Harith ibn Abdullah Al-Hamadhani, and Asim and Al-Harith read on Ali, and Ibn Abi Laila read on Al-Minhal ibn Amr and others, and Al-Minhal read on Saeed ibn Jubayr, and its chain of transmission was presented, and Alqamah, Al-Aswad, Ibn Wahb, Masruq, and Asim read Ibn Damrah and Al-Harith also read on Abdullah bin Masoud, and Jaafar Al-Sadiq read on his father Muhammad Al-Baqir, and Al-Baqir read on Zain Al-Abidin, and Zain Al-Abidin read on his father, the master of the youth of the people of Paradise, Al-Husayn, and Al-Husayn read on his father Ali bin Abi Talib, and Ali and Ibn Masoud - may Allah be pleased with them - read on The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace.
  The chain of
  transmission of Asim’s recitation is mentioned in Al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Page 155.
  ((Hafs and Abu Bakr read on the Imam of Kufa and its reciter Abu Bakr Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud bin Bahdalah Al-Asadi, their client from Kufa. That is one hundred and twenty-eight paths for Asim. Asim read on Abu Abd Al-Rahman Abdullah bin Habib bin Rabi’ah Al-Sulami Al-Dareer and on Abu Maryam Zirr bin Hubaysh ibn Habasha al-Asadi and Abu Amr Sa`d ibn Ilyas al-Shaybani. These three read on `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him. As-Sulami and Zirr also read on `Uthman ibn `Affan and `Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with them both. As-Sulami also read on Ubayy ibn Ka`b and Zayd ibn Thabit, may Allah be pleased with them both. 3. Ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him , stated
  the authenticity of the Uthmanic recitations in more than one instance to his students, including
  Abu Mu`awiyah, on the authority of Al-A`mash, on the authority of Abu Wa`il, on the authority of `Abdullah, who said: I have heard the recitation and found them to be close together, so recite as you have learned, and beware of disagreement. And being pedantic, it is like one of you saying: Come and come.
  The Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an by Al-Qasim bin Salam, known as Abu Ubaid, Part One, p. 361.
  This is also indicated by his hadith from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.
  Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Disputes,
  Chapter on What is Mentioned Regarding Persons and Disputes Between Muslims and Jews
  2279 Abu Al-Walid narrated to us, Shu’bah narrated to us, ‘Abd Al-Malik bin Maysarah narrated to me, he said: I heard Al-Nazzal bin Sabra say: I heard ‘Abdullah say: I heard a man recite a verse that I heard from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, in contrast to it, so I took him by the hand and brought him to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and he said: You are both good. Shu’bah said: I think he said: Do not differ, for those who came before you differed and were destroyed.
  #Second : The statement of Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him: ((And how do you order me to recite according to the recitation of Zaid bin Thabit))
  is rejected in more than one way:
  1. This recitation is not only the recitation of Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him, but it is the recitation of a group of the Companions and Among them is Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, himself, as we mentioned in the chains of transmission of the readings for the same ten.
  2. That Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him, when he copied the Qur’ans with the committee, the Qur’ans that they copied agreed with the Qur’ans of the majority of the Companions.
  We read in the explanation of the Sunnah by Imam al-Baghawi, may God have mercy on him, in the book of the virtues of the Qur’an, the chapter on collecting the Qur’an.
  It was narrated on the authority of Suwaid ibn Ghaflah, who said: I heard Ali ibn Abi Talib say: “Fear Allah, O people. Beware of extremism regarding Uthman and your saying: ‘He burned the copies of the Qur’an.’ By Allah, he did not burn them except in front of a group of us, the Companions of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, all of us.” So he said: “What do you say about this recitation about which the people differed?” A man will meet The man said: My recitation is better than your recitation, and my recitation is better than your recitation. This is similar to disbelief. We said: What is the opinion, O Commander of the Faithful? He said: I think that the people should agree on one copy of the Qur’an, because if you differ today, those after you will differ even more. We said: What an excellent opinion you have made. So he sent to Zayd ibn Thabit and Saeed bin Al-Aas, so he said: Let one of you write and the other dictate, and if you differ about something, then bring it to me, for we did not differ about anything in the Book of Allah except for one letter in Surat Al-Baqarah. Saeed said: The Ark is Surat Al-Baqarah, verse 248, and Zaid said: The Ark, so we brought it to Uthman, so he said: Write it: The Ark is Surat Al-Baqarah Verse 248, Ali said: If I had been in charge of the one who was in charge of Uthman, I would have done as he did. We read in the book of the Qur’ans by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani, may God have mercy on him, the first part, the chapter on Uthman’s collection of the Qur’ans, may God have mercy on him . Al-Zuhri said: On that day, they differed about the Ark and the Taboo. The Quraysh group said: the Ark, and Zaid said: the Taboo. Their difference was brought to Uthman, who said: Write it as the Ark, for it is in the language of the Quraysh. Abdullah told us: Muhammad bin Yahya told us: Yaqub bin Ibrahim bin Saad told us: My father told us, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Anas, with this: “ The investigator Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut says in the margin of his investigation of the second part of Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ in the biography of Zayd bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him: ((Hafs: He is the son of Sulayman al-Asadi Abu Omar al-Bazzaz al-Kufi, the companion of Asim, and he is an imam in recitation, abandoned in hadith, and in the chapter on the authority of Suwayd bin Ghafla, he said: I heard Ali bin Abi Talib say: Fear God, O people, and beware of exaggeration in Uthman and your saying that he burned the copies of the Qur’an, for by God he did not burn them except in the presence of all of us, the companions of Muhammad. And in it, Uthman sent to Zayd bin Thabit and Sa’id bin al-Aas, and said: Let one of you write and the other dictate, and if you differ about something, then bring it to me, for we did not differ about anything in the Book of God except about one letter in Surat al-Baqarah, Sa’id said “the Ark” and Zayd said “the Taboo,” so we brought it to Uthman, and he said: Write it down.” The coffin. Ali said: “If I had been appointed as the one who appointed Uthman, I would have done the same as he did.” Al-Baghawi mentioned it in “Sharh al-Sunnah” 4/524, 525, and Ibn Abi Dawud narrated it in “al-Masahif”: 22, 23, and its chain of transmission is authentic , as al-Hafiz said in “al-Fath” 9/16)) 3.The reading of Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him, depends on the last presentation that Zaid, may God be pleased with him, attended and which he memorized during the time of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.
  
  
  
  
  
  Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Helpers, Chapter on the Virtues of Zayd ibn Thabit, may God be pleased with him
  3599 Muhammad ibn Bashar told us, Yahya told us, Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Qatadah, on the authority of Anas, may God be pleased with him: The Qur’an was collected during the time of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, by four people, all of them from the Helpers: Abu, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Abu Zayd, and Zayd ibn Thabit. I said to Anas, “Who is Abu Zayd?” He said, “One of my paternal uncles.”
  Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, said in Fath Al-Bari, a commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari
  : His statement, “He collected the Qur’an,” means he memorized it by heart.
  As we said, his collection and memorization of the Qur’an was based on the last presentation
  in Al-Mustadrak Al-Hakim
  2857 - Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Naseer Al-Khaldi told us, Ali bin Abdul Aziz Al-Baghawi told us, in Mecca, Hajjaj bin Al-Minhal told us, Hammad bin Salamah told us, on the authority of Qatadah, on the authority of Al-Hasan, on the authority of Samurah, may God be pleased with him, who said: “The Qur’an was presented to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, in presentations.” They would say: This recitation of ours is the last presentation.
  Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, said in Al-Itqan, Part One
  : “Ibn Ashtah included in Al-Masahif and Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Fada’il, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, on the authority of Ubaydah Al-Salmani, who said: The recitation that was presented to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, was…” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) recited the Qur’an in the year in which he died. This is the recitation that people recite today.
  Ibn Ashtah narrated on the authority of Ibn Sirin who said: Jibreel used to debate the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) once every year in the month of Ramadan. However, in the year in which he died, he debated him twice. They think that this recitation of ours should be according to The last show.
  Al-Baghawi said in his explanation of the Sunnah: It is said that Zayd ibn Thabit witnessed the last presentation in which what was abrogated and what remained was explained, and he wrote it for the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and read it to him, and he used to teach it to the people until he died. For this reason, Abu Bakr and Umar relied on him in collecting it, and Uthman appointed him to write the copies of the Qur’an.
  In the Book of the Qur’an by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani, Part One, Chapter on Uthman’s Collection For the
  copies of the Qur’an, Abdullah told us, he said: Ishaq bin Ibrahim bin Zaid told us, he said: Abu Bakr told us, he said: Hisham bin Hassan told us, on the authority of Muhammad bin Sirin, on the authority of Katheer bin Aflah, he said: “When Uthman wanted to write the copies of the Qur’an, he gathered for him twelve men from the Quraysh and the Ansar, among them Ubayy bin Ka’b and Zaid bin Thabit. He said: So they sent for the quarter in Umar’s house, and it was brought. He said: And Uthman used to visit them, and whenever they disputed about something, they would postpone it. Muhammad said: So I said to Kathir, who was among those who wrote: Do you know why they were postponing it? He said: No. Muhammad said: So I thought, they were only delaying it “ to look for the one of them who had the most recent experience with the final presentation, so they could write it down according to his statement .”
  And Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, corrected the narration in the introduction to his interpretation, part one, and he said: ((It is also correct.))
  And we read from the book Al-Burhan fi Ulum Al-Quran, part one, type thirteen, the history of the Quran and the differences in the copies of the Qur’an:
  ((Abu Abd Al-Rahman Al-Salami said: The recitation of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Zaid bin Thabit, the Muhajireen and the Ansar was one; they used to recite the general recitation, which is the recitation that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited to Gabriel twice in the year in which he died, and Zaid had witnessed the final presentation and he used to recite it to the people until he died, and therefore the friend relied on him in his collection, and Uthman appointed him as the scribe of the Qur’an))
  4. That Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him, did not copy the Qur’an alone, but he was with him twelve of the Muhajireen and the Ansar, and no one objected to him
  in the book of the copies of the Qur’an by Ibn Abi Dawud Al-Sijistani, part one, the chapter on Uthman’s collection of the copies of the Qur’an.
  Abdullah told us, he said, Ishaq bin Ibrahim bin Zaid said: Abu Bakr told us: Hisham bin Hassan told us, on the authority of Muhammad bin Sirin, on the authority of Katheer bin Aflah, who said: “When Uthman wanted to write the copies of the Qur’an, he gathered for him twelve men from the Quraysh and the Ansar, among them Ubayy bin Ka’b and Zaid bin Thabit. He said: So they sent to the quarters in the house of Umar, and they were brought He said [p. 105]: And Uthman used to visit them, and if they disputed about something, they would postpone it. Muhammad said: So I said to Kathir, who was among those who wrote: Do you know why they were postponing it? He said: No. Muhammad said: So I thought, they were only delaying it “to look for the most recent of them in the last presentation and write it down according to his statement.” Ibn
  Kathir, may God have mercy on him, authenticated the narration in the introduction to his interpretation, part one, and he said: ((It is also authentic.))
  #Third: The Companions’ denunciation of Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him, of his dislike of appointing Zaid, may God be pleased with him, as head of the committee for copying the copies of the Qur’an, and the Companions’ unanimous agreement on the copy of Uthman, may God be pleased with him.
  1. Abu al-Darda’, may God be pleased with him, explicitly denounced him.
  We read in the Book of the Qur’an by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani, may God have mercy on him, part one, the chapter on the dislike of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud for that.
  Abdullah told us, he said: My uncle and Hamdan ibn Ali told us, they said: Ibn al-Asbahani told us, on the authority of Abd al-Salam ibn Harb, on the authority of al-A’mash, on the authority of Ibrahim, on the authority of Alqamah, He said:
  I went to Ash-Sham and met Abu Darda, who said: “We used to consider Abdullah to be compassionate, so why does he attack the princes?”
  Dr. Muhibb ad-Din Wa’iz said in his investigation of the Book of the Mushafs in the margin of page 192:
  ((Its chain of transmission is authentic))
  2. The consensus of the Companions on what Uthman, may God be pleased with him, copied . It is narrated
  in the Book of the Mushafs by Ibn Abi Dawud as-Sijistani, Part One, Chapter on Uthman’s, may God be pleased with him, compilation of the Mushaf.
  Abdullah told us, Ahmad ibn Sinan told us, Abd ar-Rahman told us, Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Mus’ab ibn Sa’d, who said: “I found the people gathered together when the Uthman the copies of the Qur’an, and they were amazed by that, and he said: None of them denied that.
  Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, commented on this narration in the first part of his interpretation, in the chapter on the collection of the Qur’an ((and this is a sound chain of transmission))
  and also in the book Al-Masahif by Ibn Abi Dawud Al-Sijistani, may God have
  mercy on him, with a chain of transmission that Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, authenticated in the introduction to his interpretation: Abdullah told us, he said: My uncle told me, he said: Abu Raja’ told us, he said: Israel told us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Mus’ab bin Sa’d, he said: Uthman stood up and addressed the people and said: “O people, your covenant with your Prophet has been thirteen years and you are…” You have doubts about the Qur’an, and you say the recitation of Ubayy and the recitation of Abdullah. A man says: By Allah, your recitation is not correct. So I order every man among you to bring whatever he has of the Book of Allah with him when he comes with it. And a man would come with a paper or a leather bag containing the Qur’an, until he had collected a large number of them. Then Uthman entered and called them one by one and implored them. Did you hear the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) dictating it to you? He said: Yes. When Uthman finished that, he said: Who is the most knowledgeable of people? They said: The scribe of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him), Zayd ibn Thabit. He said: Who is the most eloquent of people? They said: Saeed bin Al-Aas. Uthman said: Let Saeed dictate and Zaid write. So Zaid wrote, and he wrote copies of the Qur’an and distributed them among the people. I heard some of Muhammad’s companions say: He has done well.
  And from the book of the Mushafs by Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani, may Allah have mercy on him, we also read
  Hadith No.: 34 (a suspended Hadith) He told us, Sahl ibn Salih told us, he said: Abu Dawud and Ya’qub told us, they said: Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Alqamah ibn Murthad, on the authority of Suwayd ibn Ghaflah, he said: Ali said about the Mushafs: “If Uthman had not made it, I would have made it.”
  #Fourth: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, retracted this statement.
  This has been proven by several pieces of evidence and indications:
  1. That Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, 2. In the virtues of the Qur’an by Al - Qasim bin Salam, may God have mercy on him, we see Abdullah bin Masoud, may God be pleased with him, confirming the authenticity of the Uthmanic recitations and warning his students against disagreement. Abu Mu’awiyah told us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority of Abu Wa’il, on the authority of Abdullah, who said: I have heard the recitation and found them to be close together, so recite as you have learned, and beware of
  disagreement and exaggeration, for it is like one of you saying: Come and go. Book of virtues The Qur’an by Al-Qasim bin Salam, known as Abu Ubaid, Part One, p. 361 3. Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, complied with the order of Uthman, may God be pleased with him. We read in Al-Isti’ab by Ibn Abd Al-Barr, Part One.
  
  
  
  
  
  Ahmad bin Saeed bin Bishr narrated to us, Ibn Dalim narrated to us, Ibn Wadah narrated to us, Yusuf bin Ali and Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numayr narrated to us: Abu Muawiyah narrated to us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority of Zaid bin Wahb, who said: When Uthman sent to Abdullah bin Masoud, ordering him to go out to Medina, the people gathered around him and said: Stay and do not go out, and we will prevent you from getting anything you dislike from him. Abdullah said to them: I have an obligation to obey him, and there will be matters and tribulations that I do not like to be the first to start. The people fled and he went out to him.
  4. The consensus of the Companions on the Mushaf of Uthman, may God be pleased with him, and Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, from the Companions, and this indicates his return and change of his opinion regarding the assignment of Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him.
  We have previously mentioned the narrations specific to the consensus of the Companions.
  #Fifth and finally,
  Abu Bakr and Umar entrusted Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him, with collecting the Mushaf, and Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, did not attack Abu Bakr or Umar at that time. 
  Rather, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, entrusted him with writing his letters and reading them and writing the Mushaf.
  Imam Al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, said in Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’ in the biography of Abdullah bin Masoud, may God be pleased with him:
  ((I said: It was difficult for Ibn Masoud because Uthman did not give priority to writing the Mushaf, and he gave priority to someone who could be his son in that, and Uthman turned away from him because of his absence from him in Kufa, and because Zaid used to write the revelation for the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, so he is an imam in writing, and Ibn Masoud is an imam in recitation, then Zaid is the one who was appointed by the friend to write the Mushaf and collect The Qur’an, so why not criticize Abu Bakr? It was reported that Ibn Masoud was pleased with him and followed Uthman, praise be to Allah.))
  And the evidence:
  1. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an, Chapter on Collecting the Qur’an
  4701 Musa bin Ismail narrated to us, on the authority of Ibrahim bin Saad, Ibn Shihab narrated to us, on the authority of Ubaid bin Al-Sabbaq, that Zaid bin Thabit, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Abu Bakr sent for me after the killing of the people of Yamamah, and Umar bin Al-Khattab was with him. Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Umar came to me and said: The killing has become intense on the day of Yamamah among the reciters of the Qur’an, and I fear that the killing will become intense among the reciters in other places and much of the Qur’an will be lost. I think that you should order the collection of the Qur’an. I said to Umar: How do you do something that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not do? Umar said: This, by Allah, is good. Umar kept on urging me until Allah opened my heart to it, and I saw in it what Umar saw. Zaid said: Abu Bakr said: You are a young, intelligent man, and we do not suspect you. You used to write the revelation for the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. So follow the Qur’an and collect it. By Allah, if they had ordered me to move a mountain, it would not have been heavier for me than what he ordered me to do regarding collecting the Qur’an. I said: How do you do it? Something that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not do. He said, “By Allah, it is better.” Abu Bakr kept on asking me until Allah opened my chest to that which the chests of Abu Bakr and Umar had opened to. So I searched for the entire Qur’an from palm branches, shoulder blades, and the chests of men until I found the end of Surat At-Tawbah with Abu Khuzaymah Al-Ansari. I did not find it with anyone else. “There has come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer,” until the end of Bara’ah. The pages were with Abu Bakr until Allah took him, then with Umar during his lifetime, then with Hafsa bint Umar, may Allah be pleased with him.
  2. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, entrusted him with his books for the Jews for fear that they would add or subtract from them. He did not entrust anyone else with them for fear.
  We read in Al-Mustadrak Al-Hakim, Book of Knowledge of the Companions.
  5836 - Imam Abu al-Walid and Abu Bakr ibn Quraish narrated: Al-Hasan ibn Sufyan narrated to us, Qutaybah ibn Sa`id narrated to us, Jarir narrated to us, on the authority of al-A`mash, on the authority of Thabit ibn `Ubayd, on the authority of Zayd ibn Thabit, who said: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, said to me: “Do you know Syriac?” I said: “No.” He said: “Then learn it, for books come to us.” So I learned it in seventeen days. Al-A`mash said: Books would come to him and he would not want to read them except those he trusted.
  Musnad of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him
  21077 Narrated to us Jarir, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority of Thabit bin Ubaid, who said: Zaid bin Thabit said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to me: Do you know Syriac? Letters come to me. I said: No. He said: Then learn it. So I learned it in seventeen days.
  Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Fath Al-Bari, a commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Rulings
  : ((Abu Ya’la narrated it from his path, and he has: “I write to people and I fear that they will add to me or subtract from me, so learn Syriac.” He mentioned it, and he has another path narrated by Ibn Sa’d))
  #Summary:
  1. It is proven that Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, did not criticize the reading of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an. Rather, he disliked Zaid bin Thabit, may Allah be pleased with him, taking charge of the process of copying the copies of the Qur’an and dismissed him. It is proven that he read according to some of the ten readings and forbade his students from differing
  . 2. It is proven that the Companions denounced him for this, including Abu Al-Darda’, may Allah be pleased with him.
  3. The Companions agreed on the copy of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, all of them.
  4. Zaid, may Allah be pleased with him, was not the only writer in the process of copying. 5. Ibn Masoud, may God
  be pleased with him, retracted this statement, and this is evident in his advice to his students not to be excessive or differ, and his compliance with the order of Uthman, may God be pleased with him, to return to Medina, and the consensus of the Companions on the copy of Uthman, may God be pleased with him, and he was one of them.
  6. Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him, entrusted Abu Bakr and Umar with his collection of the Qur’an, and Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, did not object, but rather he was entrusted by someone better than them, which was the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, as we mentioned, so there is no consideration for Ibn Masoud’s, may God be pleased with him, dislike (despite his high status) of Zaid, may God be pleased with him, heading the committee for copying the Qur’ans.

  1 I said: What the author - may God have mercy on him - commented on Ibn Abi Dawood’s evidence with has a
  strong basis. If it is said: Ibn Masoud’s statement indicates that he was satisfied with the letter of someone other than him, then this is the opposite of his first objection?! It was said: He only denied that he read according to the letter of Zaid bin Thabit, and he did not deny that someone else read, so this trace is not explicit in returning, and the most it contains is an allusion to that, as if Ibn Masoud - may God be pleased with him - wanted to calm the discord, as he did during the Hajj with Uthman when he completed the prayer in Mina, and he said: “Disagreement is evil” - may God be pleased with them all. ))
  
  And I quote for you the words of Dr. Behnam Siddiqui, a scholar of Quranic manuscripts, in his research entitled The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Quran of the Prophet From a previous response of mine to the Sana’a manuscripts allegation, which confirms what I said about Ibn Mas’ud’s denial, may God be pleased with him, being limited to burning the Qur’ans that contained the seven letters, and his denial was not a denial of the correctness of reading the Uthmanic Qur’ans.
  
  The words are translated .
  
  

  
  As for the source of the differences in the three copies of the Qur’an, Behnam mentions that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, may have known about these differences and that there is a narration from Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him, that explains to us the reason for these differences. Dr. Behnam refers to the narration of the seven letters mentioned by Ibn Abi Dawud, may God have mercy on him, in his book, The Qur’an, Part One, Chapter on the approval of Abdullah bin Mas’ud for the collection of the Qur’an by Uthman, may God be pleased with him: “Abdullah told us, he said: Abdullah bin Sa’id told us, and Muhammad bin Uthman al-Ajli told us, they said: Abu Usamah told us, he said: Zuhair told me, he said: Al-Walid bin Qais told me, on the authority of Uthman bin Hassan al-Amiri, on the authority of Fulfulah al-Ja’fi, he said: I was frightened among those who were frightened to Abdullah regarding the Qur’an, so we entered upon him, and a man from the people said: We did not come to visit you, but we came when this news startled us, so he said: “ The Qur’an was revealed to your Prophet from seven chapters on seven letters, or letters, and the Book before you was revealed, or was revealed from one chapter on one letter, their meaning is the same. ”
  
  It has been reported that The same narration is in Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad, may God have mercy on him. Sheikh Ahmad Shakir authenticated it in his investigation of Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad and said, “Its chain of transmission is authentic.” Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, mentioned it in the second part of As-Silsilah As-Saheehah and said, “Its chain of transmission is good and connected.” However, the researcher Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut, may God have mercy on him, weakened it in his investigation of Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad and said, “Its chain of transmission is weak.”
  Imam Al-Haythami, may God have mercy on him, indicated in Majma’ Az-Zawa’id, Part Seven, that there is an unknown person in the chain of transmission.
  
  Behnam says: “ Considering that the believers were urged to recite the Qur’an as much as possible (Surah al-Muzzammil, verse 20), the question that arises is whether the Prophet was aware of some of these differences or not… and if he was aware, what was his reaction to them? Ibn Mas’ud may have said these words attributed to him or not, but they undoubtedly represent one of the first theories that explain the differences between the Qur’ans of the Companions.
  (On the authority of Abu Usamah, on the authority of Zuhair, on the authority of al-Walid ibn Qays, on the authority of Uthman ibn Hasan al-Amiri, on the authority of Fulfilah al-Ja’fi, who said: I was alarmed among those who were alarmed to see Abdullah regarding the Qur’ans, so we entered upon him, and a man from the people said: We did not come to you as visitors, but we came when this news alarmed us, so he said: The Qur’an was revealed to your Prophet from seven gates on seven letters, or letters, and the Book before you was revealed, or was revealed from one gate on one letter, their meaning is the same) .
  ” The report here assumes that the Prophet approved of Ibn Mas’ud’s reading of the Qur’an, as he approved of Uthman’s Qur’an. It is not difficult to imagine that multiple scribes read different readings all to the Prophet. This was consistent with his tacit acceptance when they did so. So far, it must be stressed that there is no conclusive evidence for or against this at the present time. In any case, if the Prophet tacitly accepted more than one narration, this does not necessarily mean that all readings are equal in terms of the accuracy of recitation as they came out of his mouth.
  
  
  
  
  
  Thus, the reading of the Sana’a Mushaf does not, in reality, at best, go beyond being a deviant reading within the readings of the letters (which were not read in the final presentation), like some of the deviant readings narrated from Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b . Imam Ibn al-Jazari, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his book An-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One , Introduction: ((
  
  Their agreement on one letter was easy for them, and it was more appropriate for them to agree on the letter that was in the last presentation, and some of them say that it abrogated everything else; therefore, many scholars stated that the letters that were reported from Abi and Ibn Masoud and others that contradict these copies of the Qur’an were abrogated .
  

  Before I finish this point:
  The funny thing about Al-Mansour is that he contradicted himself again. In the previous section, he cited the narration below to attack the hearing of Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Salami, may God have mercy on him, from Ibn Masoud, and he says that the reading of Asim does not go back to Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, except through Zur ibn Hubaish, may God have mercy on him, and it is among the ten readings - and if this indicates anything, it indicates Ibn Masoud’s, may God be pleased with him, acknowledgment of the correctness of the reading of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an, contrary to what he tried to do in the sixth section!!!
  
  We read from the Biographies of the Nobles, Part Five, Third Class:
  ((Abu Bakr said: Asim said: He who does not master Arabic except in one aspect does not master anything, then he said: No one taught me a letter except Abu Abd al-Rahman, and he had read to Ali - may God be pleased with him - and I used to return from him and present it to Zur ibn Hubaysh, and Zur had read to Ibn Masoud, so I said to Asim: I have verified. Yahya ibn Adam narrated it from Abu Bakr, then he said: I cannot count how many times I heard Abu Bakr mention this from Asim. And
  a group narrated from Amr ibn al-Sabah, from Hafs al-Ghadiri, from Asim, from Abu Abd al-Rahman, from Ali regarding the recitation, and Asim mentioned that he did not contradict Abu Abd al-Rahman in any of his recitation, and that Abu Abd al-Rahman did not contradict Ali - may God be pleased with him - in any of his recitation. And Ahmad ibn Yunus narrated, from Abu Bakr, he said: All of Asim’s recitation is the recitation of Abu Abd al-Rahman except for a letter.))
  
  So look at how he acknowledged in his fifth section that Asim’s recitation is from Zur Go back to Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, and look how he came here to attack the Ottoman copies of the Qur’an with what he mentioned about Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, refusing to hand over his Qur’an to be burned!!!
  So laugh at how he cited something in his previous passage and then cited the opposite of what he said here !!!!
  
  To be continued
• 

  Mohammed Sunni

  Member of the Scientific Committee of the Forum

  
  Member of the Scientific Committee
  

  • Registration date: November 19, 2018
  • Posts: 223
  • Religion: Islam

  • sharing
  • Tweet

  #4

  19 Jul, 2021, 04:10 AM

  Eighth: She threw her disease at me and slipped away!!!

  
  
  After we have finished the Islamic response, let us turn a little to the book of Al-Mansir and see the great scandals and farces.
  
  First: The difference in the number of books recognized between the three Christian sects and the Jews .
  This is a well-known and famous matter. The Catholic and Orthodox churches recognize what is called the second canonical books, which are seven books:
  Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Jesus ben Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, and Tobit,
  while the Jews and Protestants deny these books and they are not found in the Hebrew text .
  
  This means that these seven books have two characteristics:
  1. They are written in Greek.
  2. They do not exist in the Hebrew versions .
  
  We read from the Bible Dictionary:
  ((The conclusion is:
  1- In classical, Hellenistic writings, the word Apocrypha denoted the meaning of "hidden, obscure, or difficult to understand."
  2- At the beginning of the era of the fathers, the word Apocrypha was synonymous with the word writings for the elite, i.e. for a specific, distinguished group.
  3- In the following eras, it was used in Greek (such as Irenaeus and others) and in Latin (Jerome and after him) to mean "non-canonical," i.e. below the canonical books.
  4- The word Apocrypha is used - in Protestant churches - for the books found in the Septuagint and Vulgate translations, but it is not found in the Hebrew Bible.
  5- There is no synonym for the word "Apocrypha" in Hebrew meaning writing for the elite or non-canonical writing. ))
  https://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Copti...1_A/A_052.html
  
  And we read from the book Introduction to the Bible by Habib Saeed, page 39:
  ((This revelation sheds light on the books of The Apocrypha were excluded from the Hebrew canonical books, and one of the reasons for this exclusion is that they were written only in Greek. Many known and unknown non-canonical Apocryphal books were also found, as well as interpretations, explanations, and commentaries on the Holy Books, as well as other world writings.

  

  
  
  
  
  We read from the introduction to the Old Testament by Father Samuel Youssef, page 33
  : “As for the Christian arrangement of the holy books, it follows the Septuagint translation (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), as is clear in the Holy Book in our hands....
  As for the canonical books among Catholics and Orthodox, they include books known as the Apocrypha among Protestants, and the Catholics and Orthodox consider them to be second canonical books .”

  

  
  
  
  But the main problem is not here, but in the words of the Church Fathers, as the Catholic and Orthodox may say, “What does it have to do with me what the Protestants did???” The catastrophe is greater, as until the fourth century there was a dispute and difference of opinion among the Church Fathers about the canonicality of these books!!!!
  
  We read from the book of the Second Canonical Books: (The books of the Bible that the Protestants deleted from their Bibles):
  4- They say that some of the ancient and well-known theologians - especially Origen and Jerome - did not include these books in the lists of the canonical books of the Old Testament. Rather, Jerome, who wrote introductions to most of the books of the Torah, put these deleted books in a special place for them, considering them to be forged and of questionable authenticity. We respond to that by saying that, although some theologians initially ignored the canonicality of these books, they, including Origen and Jerome, returned and approved these books and cited them. We also add that although a few did not include these books in the list of books of the Torah, based on the words of Josephus, the Jewish historian, or based on the opinions of some individual Jews whose doctrine was to delete the parts of the book that would blame them for their shameful deeds and transgressions, many of the famous Church Fathers, other than those we mentioned, recognized the canonical nature of these books, proved their authenticity, and cited the verses contained in them. (See more about this topic here on St-Takla.org in the Articles and Other Books sections.)
  https://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocano..._0-index_.html
  
  And what settled the issue was the Council of Hippo and Carthage starting in 393 AD, where it made the seven verses purely canonical.
  From the Introduction to the Old Testament by Father Samuel Youssef, page 39:
  (( In the Council of Hippo, the first ecclesiastical definition or determination of the canonical book that included the books (Tobit - Maccabees) was made within the diocese of Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Working to unify the ranks of the people and put an end to all controversy over these books in 393 AD. The canonical books (Genesis - Malachi) and a group of books (Tobit - Maccabees) were determined, and before that by the Councils of Carthage in 397 AD and 419 AD ))

  

  
  
  
  
  Of course, the Protestants came after that and decided in the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century AD to delete these books !!!
  We read from the same previous source, page 40

  

  
  
  
  
  Look at the mess we have in our hands: a
  dispute for four hundred years, then the canonization of these books for about 1200 years, then the Protestants split to bring us back this dispute again!!! You see the mess!!
  
  But the disaster is that this mess was not limited to the issue of the books. The disaster is that it reached the differences in the recognized chapters. I will give two examples.
  
  The first example: Psalm 151 is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text nor among the Protestants .
  We read from the interpretation of Tadros Yacoub Malti for the Book of Psalms, Chapter 151:
  ((This psalm was found in the Septuagint and in the Alexandrian version. It was referred to by Saints Athanasius the Apostolic and John Chrysostom, as well as Apollinarius and others, but it is not found in the Hebrew version or in the Vulgate translation. ))
  
  We read from the Dictionary of the Holy Bible:
  ((* This psalm is not found in the Protestant Bible edition, but it is included in the church books. The Prophet David wrote it about himself when he was fighting Goliath the Philistine, and symbolically, David prophesied what would happen to Christ, whom David symbolizes, and that he will crush Satan as David killed Goliath. The seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent. For this reason, the Orthodox Church, guided and breathed by the Holy Spirit, arranged the reading of this psalm on the eve of the Saturday of Joy (the night of Abu Galmeses) as a strong indication of the victory of Christ (the Son of David) over Satan.
  This psalm is found in the Syriac, Septuagint, and Ethiopian translations. The Vatican, the Coptic, and the Armenian translations have all recognized the canonical nature of this psalm. This psalm has been cited by many church fathers and scholars, such as Saint Athanasius the Apostolic and Saint John Chrysostom. It is also found in the Catholic Bibles, and in some versions of the Latin Vulgate, and ecumenical translations such as the New Revised Standard Version. As we have previously explained in the commentaries sections here on the website of Anba Takla Haymanout, some critics thought that the original version of Psalm 151 was Greek, but we have seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Qumran manuscripts discovered in the period between 1946-1956) proof of the Hebrew origins of this psalm. ))
  https://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocano...moor-151_.html
  
  The second example: The continuation of the Book of Esther (chapters 11-16 of the Book of Esther in addition to verses 4-13 of chapter 10. We
  also read from the Bible Dictionary:
  ((It contains a description of some national and religious aspects of the Jews, and some letters to King Artaxerxes. The evangelical sects that split from Catholicism in the sixteenth century do not consider it among the canonical books, but the Orthodox and Catholic churches believe in the canonical nature of this continuation. It is the rest of the Book of Esther from chapters 11 to 16. ))
  https://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Copti...A/A_242_2.html
  
  And the strange thing, and unfortunately for the Protestants, is that we found these books in the Qumran manuscripts, but unfortunately for the Orthodox and Catholics, there are texts in Qumran that supported reading the Hebrew version against The Septuagint!!
  
  We read from the book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community, pages 48-49, by Assad Rustum:
  (( What is striking and heartwarming, especially the heart of the philosopher Saint Justin of Nabulsi, is that the excavators found passages from the texts of the Pentateuch that support the famous Justin in his dialogue with Tryphon the Jew in the middle of the second century AD. The excavators found in the fourth Qumran cave a text from the Book of Exodus that is very close to the Septuagint text. The souls that emerged from the lineage of Jacob in Egypt in this text are seventy-five, not just seventy as in the Torah of the Jews (the Masorah). They are seventy-five in the sermons of Stephen the First Martyr (Acts 7:14). And what we do not find from the Song of Moses in the forty-third verse of the thirty-second chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy from what came in the Septuagint text, we find most of it in a text from the texts of Deuteronomy that was found in the fourth Qumran cave ))
  
  We read what Daniel Wallace said on page THE MAJORITY! TEXT THEORY: HISTORY, METHODS AND CRITIQUE 203- 204:
  ((It is demonstrable that the OT text does not meet the criteria of preservation
  by majority rule—nor, in fact, of preservation at all in some places. A
  number of readings that only occur in versions or are found only in one or
  two early Qumran MSS have indisputable claim to authenticity over
  against the error majority.114
  Moreover in many places all the extant
  witnesses are so corrupt that conjectural emendation has to be employed.11
  Significantly, many (but not all) such conjectures have been vindicated
  by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.116
  Hence because of the necessity of conjectural emendation the doctrine of preservation is inapplicable
  for the OT—a fact that, ironically, illustrates even more boldly the
  illegitimacy of the proof texts used for this doctrine, for they all refer to
  the OT (5) ).
  
  Ok, does the problem end here?? No sir, there is a bigger and bigger disaster, which is that not all Orthodox churches agree on the number of books, and I specifically mention here the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, whose Old Testament contains the following books: the four books of Esdras, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Book of Adam and Joseph Ben Gurion, Enoch, and Jubilees!!!
  
  We read from the Encyclopedia of the Bible, Part One, Page 82-83:
  (( The Ethiopian Bible consists of 46 books of the Old Testament, 35 books of the New Testament. In addition to the recognized canonical books, they accept the Shepherd of Hermas, the Canons of the Councils, the Epistles of Clement, the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Ben Sirach, Baruch, the four books of Esdras, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Book of Adam and Joseph Ben Gurion, Enoch, and Jubilees ))

  

  
  
  
  
  We read from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
  ((But, just as the great number of translators employed caused the Bible text to be unusual, so also the revision of it was not uniform and official, and consequently the number of variant readings became multiplied. Its canon, Also, it is practically unsettled and fluctuating A host of apocryphal or falsely ascribed writings are placed on the same level as the inspired books, among the most esteemed of which we may mention the. Book of Henoch, the Kufale , or Little Genesis, the Book of the Mysteries of Heaven and Earth, the Combat of Adam and Eve , the Ascension of Isaias The Hâymanotâ Abaw (Faith of the Fathers), the “Mashafa Mestir” (Book. of the Mystery), the "Mashafa Hawi" (Book of the Compilations), "Qérlos" (Cyrillius), "Zênâ hâymânot" (Tradition of the Faith) are among the principal works dealing with moral and dogmatic matters. But, besides the fact that many of the quotations from the Fathers in these works have been modified, many of the canons of the "Synodos" are, to say the least, not historical. ))
  https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05566a.htm
  
  
  A Christian from the rest of the Orthodox churches or a Catholic Christian might say, “This talk is not an argument against me.” The truth is that the problem does not stop here, but extends to the fathers of the church, as Some of them considered some of these books to be legal!!
  We read from the Bible Dictionary:
  ((And the writer of the Book of Enoch says that the “Son of Man” existed before the creation of the world. See p. 48:2 and 3. And that he will judge the world. See p. 69:27. And that he will rule over the righteous people. See p. 62:1-6. The author of Jude quotes Enoch 1:9 in verses 14 and 15. Likewise, some of the sayings about the end times in the New Testament have their equivalents in the Book of Enoch. Some of the fathers of the early Christian era quoted some of the sayings of this book. Among these was Justin Martyr. And Arrenius, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
  But later Christian leaders denied and rejected this book. Among them were John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome or Origen. Neither the Jews nor the Christians considered this book among the canonical books. )) ))
  
  And we read from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
  (( Passing To the patristic writers, the Book of Henoch enjoyed a high esteem among them, mainly owing to the quotation in Hebrew. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas twice cites Henoch as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria , Tertullian , Origen , and even St. Augustine suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch. But in the fourth century the Henoch writings lost credit and ceased to be quoted. After an allusion by an author of the beginning of the ninth century, they disappear from view. ))
  https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm
  
  If Origen, Justin, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria all considered the book canonical and that its author was Enoch
  .
  
  Well, is there a greater and greater catastrophe? Yes, sir, there are books in the New Testament that the Church Fathers disagreed on their canonicality!
  
  Here we give two examples:
  
  The first example: The Book of the Shepherd of Hermas.
  It is an apocryphal book from the New Testament apocrypha and was not included among the canonical books. Despite this, this book was circulated in the first Christian centuries and was widespread among the churches and also influential to the point that some of the Church Fathers considered the book a canonical book like other books of the New Testament, so much so that the book appeared in the Muratorian list and is also present in the Sinaiticus version!
  The composition of the book dates back to the first half of the second century, and some have suggested that it was composed between the years 140-150.
  
  Read the Jesuit monastic translation, page 12:
  ((The New Testament is complete in the handwritten book called the Sinaitic Codex because it was found in the Monastery of Saint Catherine. In fact, the Epistle to Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were added to the New Testament, and they are two books that will not be preserved in the canon of the New Testament in its final form))

  

  
  
  
  
  
  And we read from the introduction to the New Testament, page 153:
  
  ((In the year 1749, one of the archaeologists, Muratau, discovered some scraps in which he found a list of the sacred books in the New Testament, and it seems that it was a list written against Marcion. These scraps collect four Gospels, the Book of Acts (called the Acts of All the Apostles), then 9 letters of Paul to the churches and four to individuals, Jude, two letters of John, the Book of Revelation, a letter of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermes (and he said that it is preferable to read it in the churches, but it is not placed on the same level as the other books)).
  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  We read from the book The Oldest Christian Texts, Part One, translated by Father George Nassour, pages 79-80:
  ((Hermas, one of the parishioners of the Church of Rome, wrote his book known as “The Shepherd” in the years between 140 and 150, when his sister Pope Pius I was managing the affairs of the church.... The book achieved great success and unprecedented popularity, to the extent that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen placed it on the same level as the Holy Books. In the early fourth century, Eusebius mentioned that The Shepherd was recited in some churches and used in teaching catechumens or those seeking baptism)).
  The
  
  second example: The Second Epistle of Peter .
  We read from Eusebius’s book, History of the Church, Book Three, Chapter Three:
  ((1 The First Epistle of Peter is acknowledged to be authentic, and the elders of old used it in their writings as a book that is not open to any dispute, although we know that his Second Epistle, which is now in our hands, is not among the canonical books, but nevertheless, since it was found to be useful to many, it was used with the rest of the books....
  5 As for the fourteen Epistles of Paul, they are known and there is no dispute about them, and it is not honest to overlook this fact, which is that some rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that the Church of Rome doubted it on the basis that Paul did not write it. As for what those who preceded us said about this Epistle, I will allocate a special place for it in the appropriate situation, and as for the Acts of Paul, I did not find it among the undisputed books))

  

  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  And we read from the introduction to the New Testament by Fahim Aziz, page 743:
  ((In the first and second centuries, no traces of quotations from it appear in any of the books of the fathers of that era, except in two rejected books also attributed to the Apostle Peter, namely ((Acts of Peter)) and ((Revelation of Peter)), the first was written in the year 200 AD, and the second appeared in the first half of the second century.
  As for the first person who quoted from it and called it by its name, it was Origen the Egyptian.. and despite that he announced that many Christians do not accept it. Therefore, the Church of Alexandria did not accept it as a canonical book until the year 200 AD. It was said that Clement of Alexandria wrote an interpretation of it, but no trace of him was found. As for
  Eusebius, he puts it in the list of doubtful books, and his personal opinion is that it is not among the writings of the Apostle Peter.
  The Antioch and Constantinople schools also rejected it, and the situation continued like this until the year 400 AD, but that was their position towards all the general letters.
  As for the Western school, it did not consider it canonical until about 360 AD, and for this reason it does not appear in the Muratorian list, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Cyrianus do not refer to it
  
  .
  Second: The ignorance of the authors of some books of the Old Testament .
  
  We will give two examples of this:
  
  1. The ignorance of the author of the Book of Judges .
  
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 465:
  “A religious logic is extracted from these expressions, consisting of four meanings: sin leads to punishment (sin - punishment), but the people’s repentance leads to the sending of a Savior (repentance - salvation). We are faced with a theological thought in history that was added at a later time to the narratives and is valid in all of Israel, but this framework does not always agree with what we know from the stories of the Judges.
  If we now try to attribute this theological thought to one editor or to several editors, we can count them among the writers of the Book of Deuteronomy, but here too we are faced with a completely non-binding assumption. The theological view was undoubtedly influenced by the editors of the Book of Deuteronomy, but we cannot assert that it was entirely their invention.
  As for the appendices to the book (17-21), which are also a collection of ancient traditions, they were added during or after the exile because they contain vocabulary that we find in priestly writings. However, it is difficult to determine the time when the introduction to the first chapter was added.” It includes ancient news that was strongly influenced by the tendency to defend the tribe of Judah . 
  
  ​​We read from the introduction to the Bible by Habib Saeed, page 91:
  “The books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and the Book of Samuel take us to the beginning of the monarchy. As for the First Book of Kings and the First Book of Chronicles, they tell us the story of history up to the time of the captivity. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah talk about the return from captivity, while the events of the Book of Esther occur in the Persian period of history.
  With the exception of Ezra and Nehemiah, we do not know anything about the writers of these books. There is no doubt that the writers of the books of Joshua and the First and Second Samuel drew much of the material of these books from the heroes of this story . However, they were actually written after the death of the two heroes, namely Joshua and Samuel 
  . ”
  
  2. The Ignorance of the Author of the Book of Job .
  
  We read from the modern interpretation of the Holy Bible, the Book of Job, pages 20-21:
  ((A book like the Book of Job was not written out of nowhere. God alone is the One who creates from nothing.His creatures use the materials He has given them, and the mind performs its function from the reality of human experience and from the sum of human culture. If a man has obtained a sufficient amount of education, he is supplied with the ideas of others . The writer of the Book of Job was not only sensitive and intelligent, but he was experienced and cultured, and we can also infer from the book the society that nourished his thought . We do not know how much he gained from reading the book or from discussing the types of rhetorical figures in his book or from his travels. We do not know whether he could read languages ​​other than Hebrew to know whether he borrowed directly from the literature of neighboring countries.
  But whatever the motive, his art is unique in its kind, but not isolated. In the first place, it is in agreement with the traditions of his people, it is Israelite in essence and belief, and at the same time universal in its humanity, it is the same type of literature prevalent in the ancient world, which was universal in nature, that literature widely called "wisdom" literature
  .
  
  Third: The failed boasting about the manuscripts .
  As is the custom of missionaries, they always boast about the manuscripts and that they preserved the text of their book for them, but the lowest student of textual criticism knows that this is a failed boast that has no value because the bitter truth is completely the opposite!
  
  First: The loss of the original manuscripts .
  It is known that despite the reliance on manuscripts in transmitting the New Testament, the original manuscripts of all the books of the New Testament are completely lost to the point that we do not possess even a page or less of it.
  
  We read from the book Manuscripts of the Bible in its Original Languages, page 19:
  ((We do not have in our hands now the original manuscript, that is, the handwritten copy of the writer of any book of the New Testament or the Old Testament. These manuscripts may have been worn out from frequent use, or some of them may have been damaged or hidden during times of persecution, especially since some of them were written on papyrus, which is quickly damaged. But before these manuscripts disappeared, many copies were made of them. Because from the beginning there was a pressing need for copyists of the Holy Scriptures to use them in worship meetings in various countries))
  
  .

  

  
  
  
  
  
  All the New Testament manuscripts we have are copies of copies and not the original, the author is unknown and we do not know the extent of his accuracy in preservation or transmission.
  
  In general, the New Testament manuscripts are divided into two sections:
  1. Papyrus manuscripts: These are written on papyrus sheets. Most of the discovered papyri related to the New Testament date back to between the second and eighth centuries. The oldest papyrus we have is Papyrus 52, which is a small scrap no larger than the fingers of one hand containing a paragraph from the Gospel of John.
  2. Parchment manuscripts: These are written in large Greek letters. We do not find any trace of this type of manuscripts before the fourth century, as the oldest manuscript containing the New Testament is the Sinaiticus manuscript, which dates back to the beginning of the fourth century AD.
  
  We read from the Bible Dictionary:
  ((Secondly - The most important Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are the following:
  1 - Manuscripts written on papyrus, all of which were issued from Egypt or came from this country, and they are:
  A - The John Rylands Library fragment of the Gospel of John, which came to us around the year 120 AD. This is the oldest piece of a New Testament manuscript known to the world to date. It is now preserved in Manchester, England.
  B - The Bodmer Papyrus, which dates back to around the year 200 AD. This papyrus includes the Gospels of Luke and John, and the General Epistles. This papyrus is now preserved in Geneva, Switzerland. H -
  The Chester Beatty Papyrus, which dates back to around the year 250 AD. It includes parts of the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and the Book of Revelation. This papyrus is now preserved in Dublin, Ireland.
  2 - Manuscripts written on parchment - The oldest of these manuscripts was written in large Greek letters, and among these manuscripts are the following:
  1 - The copy The Sinaiticus, which contains the books of the Old and New Testaments in Greek and dates back to the fourth century AD. It is now kept in the British Museum in London.
  B - The Vatican Codex, which includes the books of the Old and New Testaments in Greek and dates back to the fourth century AD. It is the main basis on which Westcott and Hort built their version of the New Testament, which they edited. The Vatican Codex is now kept in the Vatican in Rome.
  C - The Alexandrian Codex, which includes the books of the Old and New Testaments in Greek and dates back to the fifth century AD. It is now kept in the British Museum in London as well.
  E - The Ephraim Codex, which was re-copied, and includes the books of the Old and New Testaments in Greek. The books of the Bible were erased from it. The sermons of Ephraim were copied in their place, so that the writing of these sermons appeared above the writing of the books of the Bible. However, it has become possible for us to read the version of the Bible that dates back to the fifth century AD and is now kept in Paris.
  H - The Beze version, which includes the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and part of the First Epistle of John. It was written in Greek and Latin and dates back to the fifth or sixth century AD. It is now preserved in Cambridge, England.
  F - The Washington version, which includes the Gospels and dates back to the fourth or fifth century AD. It is now preserved in Washington, USA.
  All of these manuscripts were published in the past hundred years. They have greatly helped scholars in achieving a text closer to the original text than before. They support the biblical text and greatly increase scholars’ confidence in the text of the Bible.))
  
  What makes matters worse is the story of the discovery of the Sinaiticus manuscript, as it is known that Tschendorf discovered it in St. Catherine’s Monastery inside a trash can containing old papers!!!
  We are amazed at people how manuscripts are their mainstay in transmitting the text of the New Testament, and then we hear that their oldest manuscript of the New Testament was in a trash can!!!!!
  We read the story from the book Manuscripts of the Bible in its Original Languages, page 40

  

  
  
  
  
  
  The truth is that this is a deplorable situation. These manuscripts that they are supposed to be proud of were found in a trash can inside a church!!!!
  This is a disaster by all standards, as members of the Coptic Church throw the oldest manuscript of the New Testament into the trash can!!!!
  I have the right to stop here and end the topic, but I will continue.
  
  
  What is the reason that made the early Christians delay writing?? The answer is shocking.
  
  We read from the introduction to the New Testament by Aziz Serial, pages 106-107:
  ((The student can find two important reasons why the early Christians did not rush to write 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 certain news, there is no need to write, as their word is greater than any word written. This opinion remained prevalent even after the Gospels were written and spread))
  ​​​​​.
  This is a doctrinal disaster!!!!
  If the early Christians thought that Christ, peace be upon him, would return soon, then we do not need to record his sayings!!!!
  Moreover, they relied on oral transmission
  , but we have the right to ask: if they relied on oral transmission, why did they not document and control it???
  
  Second: Distorting the texts of the New Testament .
  
  We will give two examples of this:
  
  1. Distorting the text of baptism in the Gospel of Matthew 28:9 .
  It is a well-known text that ordinary Christians use as evidence to prove the existence of the Trinity.
  We read from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 28, the common Arabic translation
  ((19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit))
  and the truth is that this text has been distorted from its original wording, which is: Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.
  
  Evidence of this:
  When Eusebius of Caesarea (one of the Church Fathers at the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century) quoted the text in his book, Church History, he quoted it in this form: “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.”
  
  We read from Eusebius of Caesarea’s book, Church History, translated by Markos Daoud, page 100, Book Three, Chapter Five: The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ:
  “As for the rest of the apostles, against whom the conspiracies continued with the intention of exterminating them, and who were persecuted from the land of Judea, they went to all nations to preach the Gospel, relying on the power of Christ who said to them: Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

  

  
  
  
  
  
  If this indicates anything, it indicates that in the time of Eusebius, the text of Matthew 28:19 did not contain this phrase ((and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit)) and therefore this phrase is a later addition to the text!!
  
  The truth of this distortion has been acknowledged by a group of critics and interpreters of the Bible, some of whom hinted without stating it:
  
  We read from the book A Study in the Gospel as Told by Matthew by Father Stephan Chantier, page six:
  ((And it has a sacramental system ((baptism)) and a high theological thought: It expresses the doctrine of theology in a brief phrase that reminds us of ((Glory to the Father)) That phrase in which the three hypostases are equal with complete clarity has no parallel in the New Testament and the Church searched for a long time before arriving at this formula: In the beginning they baptized ((in the name of Jesus)) only. And we sense through Paul’s letters those hesitations that the expression of faith in the Trinity was known to know. As for the group that celebrates the sacrament of baptism here, it knows that it brings us into a correct relationship with that God who is three))

  

  
  
  
  
  
  And we read from the book Christian Theology and Contemporary Man by Father Salim Bustros, Part Two, Page 48:
  ((Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: Bible interpreters believe that this commandment that the Gospel put on the tongue of Jesus is not from Jesus himself, but rather a summary of the preaching that prepared the catechumens for baptism in Greek circles. Baptism in the early years of Christianity was given ((in the name of Jesus Christ)) (Acts 2:38, 10:48) or ((in the name of the Lord Jesus)) (Acts 8:16, 19:75). In Jewish circles, to distinguish Christian baptism from other rituals of purification and cleansing, it was sufficient to pronounce the name of Jesus Christ over the baptized person as evidence that he had become a member of Christ and was sealed with his seal))

  

  
  
  
  
  We read
  from A Commentary on the Bible by Arthur Peck and A.G. Greif, page 723:
  (( reflects the change in that mission brought about by the Jews' rejection of Jesus, who had regarded his work confined to Israel. The church of the first days did not observe this world wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion name" ie (turn the nations) to christianity or "in my name" ie (teach the nations) in my spirit ))
  https://archive.org/details/commenta...e/722/mode/2up
  
  And we read from Catholic Beliefs and Traditions: Ancient and Ever New by John F. O'Grady
  ((No one can say for certain the origin of this passage from Matthew. The presence of the liturgical formula with baptism in the name of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, points to itself to a later origin for this saying than the ministry of Jesus. The need for an organized church also supports the view that the passage more likely comes from the time of Matthew than Jesus
  
  . The authors of the modern interpretation of the Bible have tried to justify this by saying that since we do not have any manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew, it is sufficient to mention the name of Jesus only in the text of Matthew 28:19!!!
  
  We read from the modern interpretation of the Holy Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, page 462:
  ((It has been said that these words were not part of the original text of the Gospel of Matthew because Eusebius used to quote Matthew 28:19 in its abbreviated form in his writings before the Council of Nicaea: ((Go and make disciples of all The nations in my name)) But since there is currently no manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew that contains this reading, the phrase must have been abbreviated by Jubius himself and not copied from a text that was included in manuscripts that already existed)
  
  ​​​​​The response
  1. There is no New Testament papyrus before the Sinaiticus manuscript (early fourth century) that contains a single text of the entire Gospel of Matthew, chapter 28.
  2. The oldest manuscript of the Bible currently available is the Sinaiticus manuscript, which was written approximately in the middle of the fourth century, so how did they assert that it was not transmitted? Eusebius from other manuscripts or papyri that were available at the time and are not available now???
  3. What is the evidence? Is it certain that Eusebius abridged the text of the Baptism? Why did he abridge it? Did he abridge other texts in his other quotations?
  4. What is the relationship between the current unavailability of manuscripts and the assertion that Eusebius abridged the text? If manuscripts become available in the future, will this change? Your opinion??? Is it a matter of asserting something without evidence until evidence is presented against it??? So where did the logic of the burden of proof on the claimant go!!!!
  2.
  Distorting the text of 1 Timothy 3:16.
  We read from the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Chapter 3 (Van Dyke Translation)
  ((16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory.))
  The phrase ((God was manifested in the flesh)) is a distorted phrase and the correct one is: (who was manifested in the flesh).
  We read from the book of manuscripts of the Holy Bible in its original languages, page 20:
  ((And some differences in readings may result from errors of the mind. The copyist failed to explain some of the abbreviations that were frequently used in the manuscripts, especially terms such as “God” and “anointed” which were written in an abbreviated form on a regular basis. The differences in 1 Timothy 3:16 between “who” and “who” and “God” are an example of that. The verse: ((Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh)) is written in another reading: ((Great is the mystery of godliness: who (or: who) was manifested in the flesh)) .. etc.))
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811445[/ATTACH]
  
  And we read the text from the Sinaiticus manuscript:
  
  16 And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
  16​ ​εννερωθη εν ϲαρ κι · εδικαιωθη εν πνι εν εθνεϲιν
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811446[/ATTACH]
  http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ma...d=en&side=r&ve rse=16&zoomSlider=0
  
  And we read the verse according to the Jesuit monastic translation: ((16And without dispute, great is the mystery of godliness: “He was manifested in the
  flesh, declared righteous in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in heaven, and received up in heaven.” The body of our Lord was raised from the dead, but how very unjust this accusation is, is evident from such a passage as 1Ti 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of
  
  godliness ; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory." )) https://www.internationalstandardbib...-epistles.html .
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Third: Deliberate distortion of texts in order to support a theological opinion and the mistakes of copyists .
  We read from the book Manuscripts of the Bible in its Original Languages, page 19-21:
  ((But whoever studies the manuscripts of the Bible in its original languages ​​or its ancient translations notices the existence of some differences in the readings between the ancient manuscripts. These are minor differences that do not affect the essence of faith in any way, nor the practices of Christian life and worship.
  Most of the differences in readings between the manuscripts can be traced back to changes that occurred without the knowledge of the copyist or intentionally during the copying process.
  Sometimes differences occur due to errors in the eye. The copyist may make a mistake in reading the text he is copying from, and some words or phrases may be omitted, or the copyist may repeat some of them, or there may be an exchange in the positions of letters in words, which leads to a change in the meaning, or an exchange in the positions of words or lines. Confusion may also occur due to difficulty in reading some letters, especially since the Hebrew letters are similar in shape, as are the capital Greek letters. Sometimes it may be difficult to distinguish between letters if they are not written clearly and with sufficient care, or if the manuscript the copyist is copying from is worn out or the writing on it has faded in some places or some letters.
  Some differences in readings may also result from errors of the ear in hearing in the case of dictation. For example, the phrase in Romans 5:1 ((to us peace)) appears in some copies as ((let us have peace)) and the two phrases are similar in hearing in first-century Greek.... Some differences in readings may result from errors of the mind. The copyist failed to interpret some abbreviations that were frequently used in manuscripts, especially terms such as "God" and "anointed" which were written in abbreviated form on a regular basis.... Buck showed in his studies through Origen in comparing biblical texts that Origen attributes the differences in readings to four reasons:
  1. Errors during the process of transmission by the copyist as a result of the copyist's low degree of concentration at times.
  2. Copies that heretics deliberately destroy by injecting their ideas into them during copying.
  3. Amendments made by some copyists consciously and with some impulse in order to correct what they see as errors made by previous copyists or a difference from the reading they are accustomed to hearing.
  4. Amendments in order to clarify the intended meaning of the phrase.
  And arriving at the correct choice of the correct readings seems to be based, in Origen’s opinion, on the following:
  1. Consistency with the doctrines of faith.
  2. Accuracy of geographical information
  . 3. Consistency and harmony with other texts
  . 4. Linguistic etymological origins.
  5. Consensus of the majority of manuscripts known to him.

  

  
  
  
  
  This is We also read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 13: “The copies of the New Testament that have come down to us are not all the same, but one can see in them differences of varying importance, but their number is very great in any case. There is a group of differences that deal only with some rules of grammar and syntax or words or the arrangement of words, but there are other differences between the manuscripts that deal with the meaning of entire paragraphs. Discovering the source of these differences is not a difficult matter, for the text of the New Testament was copied and copied over many centuries by scribes whose suitability for the work varies, and none of them is free from the various errors that prevent any copy, no matter how much effort is expended on it, from being completely in accordance with the example from which it was taken. In addition to that, some scribes sometimes tried, in good faith, to correct what came in their example and seemed to them to contain clear errors or lack of precision in theological expression, and thus they introduced new readings into the text that almost All of them are wrong, and it can be added to all of this that the use of many passages from the New Testament during the performance of the rituals of worship often led to the introduction of decorations aimed at beautifying the ritual or to reconciling different texts that were helped by reading out loud. It is clear that the changes introduced by the copyists over the centuries accumulated on each other. So the text that finally reached the age of printing was burdened with various types of changes, which appeared in a large number of readings))
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  The age of handwriting covers period of time amounting to three-quarters of the time since the New Testament was completed. Given the enormous numbers of copies of some or all of the New Testament that were copied during the first centuries, this means that many differences have found their way into the manuscripts. The originals of the books of the New Testament were undoubtedly lost at a very early time. This means that it is not possible to determine with complete accuracy every word of the original words of the New Testament on the basis of any single manuscript. The only way to do this is by comparing many manuscripts and establishing the basis for determining the exact form - as much as possible - of the original text. The study of manuscripts of literary works - whose originals have been lost - with the aim of determining the original text is known as "Textual Criticism" (textual criticsim). Although the New Testament is the largest and most important field of this study, the critical study of texts is essential for every ancient literary work)) continued
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  Mohammed Sunni

  Member of the Scientific Committee of the Forum

  
  Member of the Scientific Committee
  

  • Registration date: November 19, 2018
  • Posts: 223
  • Religion: Islam

  • sharing
  • Tweet

  #5

  19 Jul, 2021, 04:11 AM

  Fourth: New Testament quotations from the Apocryphal books!
  Here are two examples:
  1. The quotation from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, which
  we read from a previous research of mine:
  

  We read from the Epistle of Jude, Chapter 1 (Common Arabic Translation):
  14And Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam, foretold of them, saying, “Behold, the Lord is coming with thousands of his saints,
  15to take account of all flesh, and to judge the wicked together, for all the evil they have done, and for all the evil word these ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
  
  We say: This prophecy of Enoch is not found in the entire Old Testament, but it is quoted from the First Book of Enoch.
  We read from the First Book of Enoch, Chapter 1:
  9. And behold! He comes with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy onesTo execute judgement upon all,
  And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
  Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed,
  And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.
  http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/enoch1c.pdf
  
  This quotation was acknowledged by a group of church fathers in the early Christian centuries, and that the writer of the Epistle of Jude quoted the text from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch :
  
  We read from the Dictionary of the Holy Bible:
  ((The writer of the Book of Enoch says that the “Son of Man” existed before the creation of the world, see p. 48: 2 and 3, and that he will judge the world, see p. 69: 27, and that he will rule over the righteous people, see p. 62: 1-6. The writer of the Epistle of Jude quotes in verses 14 and 15 the Book of Enoch, p. 1: 9. Likewise, some of the sayings about the end times in the New Testament have their equivalents in the Book of Enoch. Some of the fathers in the early Christian ages quoted some of the sayings of this book. Among these were Justin Martyr, Arrenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
  However, later Christian leaders denied and rejected this book, including John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome or Orinimus. Enoch also, the seventh from Adam - He was the seventh patriarch, and is distinguished thus from Enoch , son of Cain, who was but the third from
  Adam ; this
  
  appears
  
  plainly from
  the genealogy, Ch1 1:1 : Adams Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, Henoch or Enoch, etc. Of the book of Enoch, from which this prophecy is thought to have been taken, much has been said; but as the work is apocryphal, and of no authority, I shall not burden my page with extracts. See the preface.
  Perhaps the word προεφητευσε, prophesied, means no more than preached, spoke, made declarations, etc., concerning these things and persons; for doubtless he repaired the ungodliness of his own times. It is certain that a book of Enoch was known in the earliest ages of the primitive Church, and is quoted by Origen and Tertullian; and is mentioned by St. Jerome in the Apostolical Constitutions, by Nicephorus, Athanasius, and probably by St. Augustine
  
  https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/jde001.htm
  
  We read from PULPIT COMMENTARY:
  Near the beginning of that remarkable specimen of ancient apocalyptic literature, the Book of Enoch (chapter 1:9), we find these words, “And behold, he comes with myriads of the holy, to pass judgment upon them, and will destroy the impious, and will call to account all flesh for everything the sinners and the impious have done and committed against him" (Schodde's rendering). This is the passage which Judaism quotes. He does so, however, with some modification; For the original, as we now have it, it does not contain any reference to the “hard speeches” of the men of impiety. The book itself has had a singular history. Some acquaintance with it is discovered as early as the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' the 'Book of Jubilees,' and the 'Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.' It was freely used by the Fathers of the first five centuries. Though never formally recognized as canonical, it was in great esteem, largely accepted as a record of revelations, and regarded as the work of Enoch. It disappeared after Augustine's time, the only traces of its existence being some references to it in the writings of Syncellus and Nicephorus.
  https://biblehub.com/jude/1-14.htm
  
  And we read from the Jesuit monastic translation in the margin of page 789:
  (((17) A near-literal citation of the Greek text of Enoch 1/9 ))
  
  
  file:///Users/MacbookPro /Downloads/The Holy Jesuit Edition (2).pdf
  
  Some of them tried to deny it, saying that the quotation was not from the Book of Enoch, but from an oral Jewish heritage that existed at that time (and this in one way or another proves the authenticity of at least some of the oral heritage and that there is a truth outside the covenant (Old also) :
  
  We read from GILL'S EXPOSITION OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE:
  that Enoch wrote a prophecy, and left it behind him in writing, does not appear from hence, or elsewhere; the Jews, in some of their writings, do cite and make mention of the book of Enoch; and there is a fragment now which bears his name, but is a spurious piece, and has nothing like this prophecy in it; wherefore Jude took this not from a book called the "Apocalypse of Enoch", but from tradition; this prophecy being handed down from age to age; and was in full credit with the Jews, and therefore the apostle very appropriately produces it; or rather he had it by divine inspiration , and it is as follows:
  saying, behold, the Lord came with ten thousand of his saints; by the
  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-14.htm
  
  and we read from Matthew Poole's Commentary
  And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam; Either to distinguish him from Enoch the son of Cain, or to show the antiquity of the prophecy.
  Prophesied; he doth not say wrote, and therefore from hence it cannot be proven that there was any such book as Enoch's prophecies, received by the Jews as canonical Scripture; but rather some prophecy of his delivered to them by tradition, to which here the apostle refers, as a thing known among them; and so argues against these heretics from their own concession, as Jude 1:9. So here; qd These men own the prophecy of Enoch, that the Lord comes to judgment, &c., and they themselves are in the number of those ungodly ones, and they to whom the prophecy is to be applied.
  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-14.htm
  
  However, critics have also rejected this hypothesis - the hypothesis that the quotation was not from the Book of Enoch but from an oral tradition existing at the time of the writing of the letter - and they have confirmed that The text of the Epistle of Jude 14 and 15 is a direct quote from the Book of Enoch, Chapter 1, Verse 9, and contrary to what some claim, it existed and was known even one hundred years before the time of Christ, peace and blessings be upon him.
  
  We read from Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
  14. And Enoch Also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these …] The words that follow are almost a verbal quotation from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch. As that work had probably been in existence for a century before St Jude wrote, and was easily accessible, it is more natural to suppose that he quoted here, as in previous instances, what he thought edifying, than to adopt either of the two strained hypotheses, (1) that the writer had received what he quotes through a tradition independent of the Book of Enoch, that tradition having left no trace of itself in any of the writings of the Old Testament, or (2) that he was guided by a special inspiration to set the stamp of authenticity upon the one genuine prophecy which the apocryphal writer had imbedded in a mass of fantastic inventions
  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-14.htm

  2. Quoting from the Apocryphal Book of the Ascension of Moses or the Prayer of Moses .
  We read from my previous research:
  

  We read from the Epistle of Jude, Chapter 1: 9 (Joint Arabic Translation)
  9Although Michael the archangel, when he disputed with Satan and argued with him about the body of Moses, did not dare to condemn Satan with a degrading word, but said to him, “May God reward you!”
  
  We say: This story, the story of Michael’s dispute with Satan over the body of Moses, peace be upon him, is not found in the entire Old Testament. It is a story taken either from an apocryphal book from the first century called The Prayer of Moses or the Assumption of Moses, or from the Jewish oral tradition .
  
  This quotation was acknowledged by critics and interpreters of the Bible:
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation on page 766 in the author’s introduction to the Epistle of Jude:
  ((This environment seems to be closely connected to the clubs in which apocalyptic literature emerged since the second century B.C. and which left behind works such as the Book of Enoch, the Ascension of Moses, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The author quoted words from the Book of Enoch, verses 14 and 15, word for word, and used the Book of the Ascension of Moses or a similar document (verse 9). ))
  
  
  
  We also read in footnote 12 on page 789 in the commentary on verse 9:
  ((Rekiriah 3/2 This dispute between Michael and Satan was mentioned in Jewish apocalyptic literature, perhaps in ((The Ascension of Moses)) in the early first century of our era ))
  
  
  file:///Users/MacbookPro/Downloads/Holy, the Jesuit edition (3).pdf
  
  We read from PULPIT COMMENTARY :
  What is meant, then, is that Michael restrained himself, leaving all judgment and vengeance even in this case to God. But what is the case referred to? The Targum of Jonathan, on Deuteronomy 34:6, speaks of Michael as having charge of the grave of Moses, and there may be something to the same effect in other ancient Jewish legends (see Wetstein). But with this partial exception, there seems to be nothing resembling Jude's statement either in apocryphal books like that of Enoch or in the rabbinical literature, not to speak of the canonical Scriptures . Neither is the object of the contention quite apparent - whether it is meant that the devil attempted to deprive Moses of the honor of burial by impeaching him of the murder of the Egyptian, or that he sought to preserve the body for idolatrous uses such as the brazen serpent lent itself to, or what else. The matter, nevertheless, is introduced by Jude as one with which his readers would be familiar. When, then, comes the story? Some have solved the difficulty by the desperate expedient of allegory, as if the body of Moses were a figure of the Israeliite Law, politics, or people; and as if the sentence referred to the giving of the Law at Sinai, the siege under Hezekiah, or the rebuilding under Zerubbabel. Others seek its source in a special revelation, or in some unrecorded instructions given by Christ in explanation of the Transfiguration scene. Herder would travel all the way to the Zend-Avesta for it.Calvin referred it to oral Jewish tradition. Another view of it appears, however, in so early a writer as Origin, viz. that it is a quotation from an old apocryphal writing on the Ascent or Assumption of Moses, the date of which is much disputed, but is taken by some of the best authorities (Ewald, Wieseler, Dillmann, Drummond) to be the first decade after the death of Herod. This is the most probable explanation ; And Jude's use of this story, therefore, carries no more serious consequences with it than the use he afterwards makes of the Book of Enoch.
  https://biblehub.com/jude/1-9.htm
  
  And the interpreters of the Bible reported that the story had a great oral influence, so that in later centuries similar stories were found in the Midrash of Yalkut and the Midrash of Deuteronomy Rabbah.
  We read from Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Epistle of Jude 1: 9
  (( Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings . There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all
  .... the angelic host. Nor is the word devil , as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits
  Disputed about the body of Moses - What this means I cannot tell; or from what source St. Jude drew it, unless from some tradition among his countrymen. There is something very like it in Debarim Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 263, 1: "Samael, that wicked one, the prince of the satans, carefully kept the soul of Moses, saying: When the time comes in which Michael shall lament, I shall have my mouth filled with laughter. Michael said to him: Wretch, I weep, and you laugh. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, because I have fallen; for I shall rise again: when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light; Micah 7:8. By the words, because I have fallen, we must understand the death of Moses; by the words, I shall rise again, the government of Joshua, etc." See the preface.
  Another contention of Michael with Satan is mentioned in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 43, 3: "At the time in which Isaac was bound there was a contention between Michael and Satan. Michael brought a ram, that Isaac might be liberated; But Satan endeavored to carry off the ram, that Isaac might be slain."
  The contention mentioned by Jude is not about the sacrifice of Isaac, nor the soul of Moses, but about the Body of Moses; but why or wherefore we know not. Some think the devil wished to show the Israelites where Moses was buried, knowing that they would then adore his body; and that Michael was sent to resist this discovery.
  https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke /jde001.htm
  
  Even the Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Organus, mentioned that the story was taken from the Book of Moses’ Prayer.
  We read from the book Introduction to the New Testament by Father Fahim Aziz, page 761 (while discussing the content of the Epistle of Jude):
  (( As for the story of the angel Michael and Satan, it was not mentioned in known books, although Clement of Alexandria says that it came in the Assumption of Moses ))
  
  
  
  file:///Users/MacbookPro/Downloads/md5l_ll_3hd_el_gdid.pdf
  
  We read from the Expositor's Greek Testament Jude 1:9. ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος. The term ἀρχ. occurs in the NT only here and in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. The names of the seven archangels are given in Enoch. The story here narrated is taken from the apocryphal Assumptio Mosis, as we learn from Clem. Adumbr. in Ep. Judae, and Orig. De Princ. iii. 2, 1. Didymus (In Epist. Judae Enarratio) says that some doubted the canonicity of the Epistle because of this quotation from an apocryphal book .
  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-9.htm
  
  We read from Meyer's NT Commentary
  ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ κ.τ.λ.] This legend is found neither in the OT nor in the Rabbinical writings, nor in the Book of Enoch; Jude, however, supposes it well known . Oecumenius thus explains the circumstance: λέγεται τὸν Μιχαὴλ... ἀλλʼ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Μωσέως, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι αὐτῷ τυχεῖν τῆς ἐντίμου ταφῆς. According to Jonathan on Deuteronomy 34:6, the grave of Moses was given to the special custody of Michael. This legend, with reference to the manslaughter committed by Moses, might easily have been formed, as Oecumenius states it, “out of Jewish tradition, extant in writing alongside the Scriptures” (Stier).[28] According to Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν, iii. 2), Jude derived his account from a writing known in his age: ἈΝΆΒΑΣΙς ΤΟῦ ΜΩΣΈΩς.
  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-9.htm
  
  And we read from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
  9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil…] It is obvious, from the manner in which St Jude writes, that he assumes that the fact to which he refers was familiar to his readers. No tradition, however, precisely corresponding with this statement is found in any Rabbinic or apocryphal book now extant , not even in the Book of Enoch, from which he has drawn so largely in other instances (Jude 1:6; Jude 1:14). Œcumenius indeed, writing in the tenth century, reports a tradition that Michael was appointed to minister at the burial of Moses, and that the devil urged that his murder of the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12) had deprived him of the right of sepulture, and Origen (de Princ. iii. 2) states that the record of the dispute was found in a lost apocryphal book known as the Assumption of Moses, but in both these instances it is possible that the traditions may have grown out of the words of St Jude rather than being the foundation on which they rested. Rabbinic legends, however, though they do not furnish the precise fact to which St Jude refers, shew that a whole cycle of strange fantastic stories had gathered around the brief mysterious report of the death of Moses in
  Deuteronomy 34:5-6, and it will be worth while to give some of these as shewing their general character.
  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-9.htm
  
  Some have tried to deny the idea of ​​quoting from the Prayer Book of Moses and some have even denied the idea of ​​quoting from the oral Jewish tradition, claiming that the text mentioned by Jude is inspired by the Holy Spirit!!!!
  To respond to such naivety, we read from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
  It is clear from these extracts that there was something like a floating cycle of legendary traditions connected with the death of the great Lawgiver, and it is a natural inference that St Jude’s words refer to one of these then popularly received. It is scarcely within the limits of probability that anything in the nature of a truly primitive tradition could have been handed down from generation to generation, through fifteen hundred years, without leaving the slightest trace in a single passage of the Old Testament; nor is it more probable to assume, as some have done, that the writer of the Epistle had received a special revelation disclosing the fact to him. His tone in speaking of the fact is plainly that of one who assumes that his readers are familiar with it.
  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-9.htm

  Fifth: The catastrophe of catastrophes: escaping to distortion to deny the contradiction in the Holy Bible, supporting the credibility of the book by undermining its reliability!!
  
  This is the most amazing thing, as the Christian interpreter resorts to claiming that distortion occurred in his book in order to escape from acknowledging that contradiction occurred in it!! He has two choices, both of which are bitter, so he chose the less bitter one for himself,
  and this is a deplorable situation!! Oh God, no gloating!!
  We will give two examples of this:
  
  
  1. Claiming that distortion occurred in the name Michal in order to deny contradiction .
  We read from the Book of 2 Samuel, Chapter 6
  ((22 And I will be less than this, and I will be lowly in my own eyes, but before the handmaids whom you have mentioned, I will be glorified.
  23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death .))
  
  And we read from the Book of 2 Samuel, Chapter 21
  ((8 And the king took the sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she had born to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, the five whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite
  .
  The interpreters of the Bible tried to find a solution to this problem, and as I mentioned, it was Michal's sister who gave birth,
  and so some interpreters mentioned that in some translations Merab was mentioned instead of Michal, and that mentioning Michal is a mistake (I repeat a mistake and a distortion that occurred).
  For example, we read in Adam Clarke's interpretation
  ((Five sons of Michal - whom she brought up - Michal, Saul's daughter, was never married to Adriel, but to David, and afterwards to Phaltiel; though it is here said she bore ילדה yaledah, not brought up, as we falsely translate it: but we learn from Sa1 18:19, that Merab, one of Saul's daughters, was married to Adriel.
  Two of Dr. Kennicott's MSS. have Merab, not Michal; the Syriac and Arabic have Nadab; the Chaldee has properly Merab; but it renders the passage thus: - And the five sons of Merab which Michal the daughter of Saul brought up, which she brought forth to Adriel the son of Barzillai. This cuts the knot.))
  https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/sa2021.htm
  
  Some translations of the Bible realized the error and mentioned Merab instead of Michal
  New International Version
  But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
  
  New Living Translation
  But he gave them Saul's two sons Armoni and Mephibosheth, whose mother was Rizpah daughter of Aiah. He also gave them the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, the wife of Adriel son of Barzillai from Meholah.
  
  English Standard Version
  The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth;and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul , whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite;
  
  Berean Study Bible
  But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons whom Rizpah daughter of Aiah had borne to Saul, as well as the five sons whom Merab daughter of Saul had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
  
  New American Standard Bible
  So the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, Armoni and Mephibosheth whom she had borne to Saul, and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she had borne to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
  
  2. The distortion of Ahaziah’s age to remove the contradiction in his age .
  According to the Second Book of Kings, he was 22 years old.
  We read from the Second Book of Kings, Chapter 8:
  25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign. 26 And Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
  27 And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, like the house of Ahab, because he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab.
  
  But according to the Second Book of Chronicles, he was 42 years old when he became king!! We
  read from the Second Book of Chronicles, chapter 22:
  2 Ahaziah was the son of Forty-two years he reigned, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem . His mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
  3 And he also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother had counseled him to do evil.
  4 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, like the house of Ahab, for they had counseled him after the death of his father to destroy him.
  
  The disaster here is not only this contradiction, but the disaster is that the age mentioned in the Book of Chronicles The second makes Ahaziah two years older than his father!!!!
  We read from the Book of Second Kings, Chapter 8: 16 And in the fifth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel and of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign.
  17 He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem .
  
  This means that Jehoram died and He was forty years old, which means that Ahaziah was two years older than Jehoram according to the Second Book of Kings!!!!
  A contradiction and a big predicament that the Christians found themselves in, and it is a bitter predicament!!!
  
  
  So what was the response of the majority of Christians to this contradiction?
  The majority’s response: The claim is that the text in the Book of Kings, Chapter 8, was distorted by a copyist’s error, such that he made a mistake in the number and wrote 42 instead of 22.
  This response in itself is sufficient and comprehensive to destroy the infallibility of the Holy Book, and I personally do not object to this response, as it is binding on them, as it proves what we were saying, that the Holy Book has been subject to distortion, even if the distortion they went to here was an unintentional mistake by the copyist.
  
  We read from the book Biblical Criticism: Schools of Criticism, Skepticism and Responses to Them by Father Helmy Yacoub, who responds - allegedly - to this objection:
  ((A: 1- The writer of the Book of Chronicles stated, “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign” (2 Chronicles 22:2), and only two verses before this verse he said about his father Joram, “He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years” (2 Chronicles 21:20), as we also mentioned here on the website of St-Takla Haymanout in other sections. That is, Joram the father died when he was forty years old, and his son Ahaziah succeeded him in the kingdom. It is impossible for the son’s age to have been forty-two years when he succeeded his father, that is, his age is two years older than his father’s age
  
  .. The fact that the Hebrews used letters instead of numbers, and there seems to be a similarity between the letter that indicates the number 20 and the letter that indicates the number 40, it seems that some copyists were confused about what came in the Book of Chronicles, so instead of 22 they wrote 42. Professor Dr. Wahib Jurji says: “The commentators agreed that the text in (2 Chronicles 22: 2) resulted from an error in translation or transmission that was not intentional on the part of the writer (copyist).. For this reason, scholars of the Holy Book refuse to accept the text in 2 Chronicles, contenting themselves with confirming the correctness of the text in (2 Kings 8: 26)” (3). In the margin of the Holy Book in the Beirut translation, commenting on “Ahaziah was forty-two years old” (2 Chronicles 22: 2), it was read in some other versions as twenty-two.
  
  2- “Dr. Priest Munis Abdel Nour” says: “ The ancient Hebrew and Greek languages ​​did not have numbers like Arabic. The Hebrews used the alphabet instead of numbers, and some of these letters are similar in shape: for example, the letters dal and ra in Hebrew are completely similar. The sincere researcher finds that errors like these are due to copying, and do not affect the text of the book or its teachings at all. They can be viewed as the many errors that occur in our time during the printing of various books. No matter how many typographical errors there are in any book, this does not change its text or meaning. Moreover, no one places responsibility for an error like this on the author of the book” (4).
  
  3- Because the scribes, whether Jewish or Christian, have complete honesty towards the word of God and preserve the text as it reached them, so no one dared to return the number 40 to its original, which is 20, so this dispute that exists until now is a living testimony to the honesty of the People of the Book, and it is clear that such a difference does not affect any belief or any truth, as the truth is that Ahaziah is the son of King Jehoram, he succeeded him in ruling, and ruled for a short period of about a year and Jehu assassinated him when he assassinated Jehoram, King of Israel (2 Kings 9:27). As for his age when he assumed power, this is not an essential matter but a secondary matter. It is stated in “The Book of Guidance”: “The reason for the difference in reading is that the Hebrews used letters to indicate numbers, and since there is a similarity between the letter indicating the number 2 and the letter indicating the number 4This difference in reading arose, and this is a very rare thing in the Book of God, and it is almost as if it does not exist, unlike the difference in the readings of the Qur’an, which are in the thousands, as we will see. In addition to this, the various readings of the Qur’an are based on the difference in rulings and the division of doctrines, unlike what we are in (5).
  
  4- Commenting on some translations that mentioned that Ahaziah was twenty years old when he assumed the kingdom , Father Tadros Yaqoub says: “It is stated in the Septuagint that Ahaziah was twenty years old when he became king. This is acceptable with what was mentioned in the previous chapter that Jehoram became king when he was thirty-two years old....))
  https://st-takla.org/books/helmy-elk...cism/1337.html
  
  Regardless of his stupidity in talking about the difference in readings - and the readings came as a result of the difference between the Quranic manuscripts and this poor man does not know that all readings go back with correct chains of transmission connected to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and that it was proven that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, used to read with multiple readings as mentioned in the hadith of the seven letters - the priest admitted that distortion occurred in his book even if it was a marginal and unintentional error. It is a claim of distortion to contradict the problem of contradiction!!!!
  
  
  The commentator Adam Clarke says in his interpretation of the Second Book of Kings, chapter eight:
  ((Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign - In Ch2 22:2, it is said, forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; this is a heavy difficulty, to remove which several expedients have been used. It is most evident that, if we follow the reading in Chronicles, it makes the son two years older than his own father! for his father began to reign when he was thirty-two years old, and reigned eight years, and so died, being forty years old; see Kg2 8:17. mother the daughter of Omri, who was indeed the daughter of Ahab. Now, these forty-two years are easily reckoned by any that will count back in the Chronicle to the second of Omri. Such another reckoning there is about Jechoniah, or Jehoiachin, Kg2 24:8 : Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. But, Ch2 36:9, Jehoiachin was the son of eight years; that is, the beginning of his reign fell in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Judah's first captivity." - Works, vol. i., p. 87.
  After all, here is a most manifest contradiction, that cannot be removed but by having recourse to violent modes of solution. I am satisfied the reading in Ch2 22:2 (note), is a mistake; and that we should read there, as here, twenty-two instead of forty-two years; see the note there.And we may not say with Calmet, Which is most dangerous, to acknowledge that transcribers have made some mistakes in copying the sacred books, or to acknowledge that there are contradictions in them, and then to have return to solutions that can yield no satisfaction to any unprejudiced mind? I add, that no mode of solution yet found out has succeeded in removing the difficulty; and of all the MSS. which have been collated, and they amount to several hundred, not one confirms the reading of twenty-two years. And to it all the ancient versions are equally unfriendly. ))
  https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/kg2008.htm
  
  Sixth: The strange thing, brothers, is that the matter of accusing distortion and avoiding contradiction by resorting to distortion did not stop at the Old Testament. Here is Origen distorting a text in the Old Testament. The new one, in order to avoid the disastrous mistake that the authors of the New Testament made, then he claims that his phrase is correct because the Greek copyists made many mistakes!!!!
  We read from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of John, chapter six, when he talks about the text of John 1/28:
  ((These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. John 1:28 We are aware of the reading which is found in almost All the copies, these things were done in Bethany. This appears, moreover, to have been the reading at an earlier time; and in Heracleon we read Bethany Bethany, but Bethabara. We have visited the places to enquire as to the footsteps of Jesus and His disciples, and of the prophets. Now, Bethany, as the same evangelist tells us, was the town of Lazarus, and of Martha and Mary; It is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, and the river Jordan is about a hundred and eighty stadia distant from it Nor is there any other place of the same name in the neighborhood of the Jordan, but they say that Bethabara is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptized there. The etymology of the name, too, corresponds with the baptism of him who made ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him; for it yields the meaning House of preparation, while Bethany means House of obedience. Where else was it fitting that he should baptize, who was sent as a messenger before the face of the Christ, to prepare His way before Him, but at the House of preparation? And what more fitting home for Mary, who chose the good part, Luke 10:41, 43 which was not taken away from her, and for Martha, who was cumbered for the reception of Jesus, and for their brother, who is called the friend of the Savior, than Bethany, the House of obedience? Thus we see that he who aims at a complete understanding of the Holy Scriptures must not neglect the careful examination of the proper names in it. In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority.The transaction about the swine, which was driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who carefully informed themselves of all matters connected with Judæa. But in a few copies we have found, into the country of the Gadarenes; And, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judæa, in the neighborhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea . But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons. ))
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101506.htm
  
  Origen accuses the Greek scribes of always making mistakes in writing names!!!
  
  The great disaster here is that Origen contradicted himself when he did The same act which he denied of Christians in his reply to Celsus
  from Origen's Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 27, conveys Celsus's accusation that Christians distorted the Gospels so that they could respond to objections to the contradictions in their book,
  
  Chapter XXVII.
  After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like people who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have It was remodeled, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduced heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
  
  Did you like this, supporter? You have two solutions:
  1. Origen is a liar
  2. Your book is distorted
  3. Your book is wrong
  
  Seventh: The ignorance of the authors of the first five books (the Torah) attributed to Moses, peace be upon him.
  This is one of the greatest calamities facing Jews and Christians today. The Torah today - according to what The latest academic studies on the higher criticism of the Torah have reached the conclusion that it is not in fact collected by one person, but rather by multiple sources, which is known as Documentary Hypothesis.
  
  The simplest form of this approach is to say that the Torah has four books or at least four sources:
  
  1. The Yahwist source
  
  2. The Elohimic source
  
  3. The Deuteronomistic source
  
  4. The Rabbinic source.
  
  Despite the opposition of many specialists to this division, their opposition does not come from the perspective of denying the multiplicity of sources specific to the Torah, but rather from the perspective of denying its confinement to these four sections. Many now believe that the division should be more than this!!!
  
  Whoever denies this theory is required to provide evidence that this Torah can be attributed to Moses, peace be upon him, and this is impossible. The Torah manuscripts are late, as the oldest manuscript dates back to the third century BC (some pieces from the Qumran manuscript). As for the oral heritage, there is nothing to control it, as there are no chains of transmission for the Torah, in addition to the fact that the Torah was discontinued and was not transmitted to the people of the Children of Israel throughout the ages, as they promote (see the previous parts of this series).
  
  If their denial is out of fanaticism, then let them know that we are not the first to deny that the entire Torah can be attributed to Moses, peace be upon him.
  The Jewish philosopher Philo said it, and the famous historian Josephus said it, and the great Jewish rabbi and interpreter Ibn Ezra said it.
  We read from the Introduction to the Old Testament by Father Samuel Joseph, page 73:
  ((For many centuries, the Jews and Christians believed that Moses wrote the Torah (the five books). Philo and Josephus believe, as is also stated in the Talmud, that Moses wrote the five books, except for the last part of Deuteronomy 34, and Philo and Josephus confirm that Moses wrote about his death, while the Talmud attributes the writing of the last eight verses to the prophet Joshua... In the Middle Ages, Ibn Ezra, influenced by what Isaac Ben Jasos said, in 1167 AD, went to say that chapter 36 of Genesis was not written before the reign of King Jehoshaphat, due to the reference in verse 35 to Hadad, the king of Adam (see 1 Kings 11:14) in addition to the ambiguous phrases in Genesis 22:14, Deuteronomy 1:1, 3:11) )
  
  As for the theory of the four sources, we explain it as I mentioned in a previous research,
  
  
  
  and as for the theory of the four sources and how it began, we explain it as follows:
  We read from the same previous source, pages 73-74:
  ((And in the period between 1700 and 1900 AD, Jean Astruc, the French physician, appeared, who believes that Moses formulated the Book of Genesis from two main sources They are source E and source J, and thus the theory of sources emerged and was later elaborated upon by Eichhorn (in 1780 AD) and others such as ALEXANDER GEDDES, the Scottish Catholic priest between 1792-1800 AD, and they began to believe that the Pentateuch was written by an unknown writer who used many sources in writing it, the most important of which were source E and source J.... Then the bright star appeared in the drama of critical study of the Pentateuch, which is Wellhausen, and Wellhausen's most important writings appeared between 1876-1884 AD, and this theory of sources reached its peak, and the influence of this theory on the study of the Bible had the same effect that Darwin had on the natural sciences.
  
  Source J or Y
  
  The Yahwest Narrative
  Source J or Y dates back to the royal era (950-850 BC) and speaks of the extended land and its expansion (Gen. 15:18, 17:4) and of the descendants of Judah (Gen. 49:12) to the time of Solomon. Source J discusses the story of God and His dealings with man from creation to the time of Israel’s entry into the land of Canaan. This source is unique in its use of the term Jehovah the Lord, as it uses many words such as nurse instead of nation and the word Sinai instead of Horeb and many other words (Paran Genesis…). Source J speaks of the fathers with elaboration and distinction. It also discusses the attribution of human attributes to God and the attribution of human attributes to non-rational beings…
  
  Source E
  
  The Elohist Narrative
  is believed to date back to about a hundred years after Source J (850-750 BC) and begins its discussion of Abraham as a prophet (Gen. 20:7) as a man of prayer. Source E is content to present to us God’s treatment and response to Elijah by sending fire from heaven and not through human incarnation as was done in many historical places mentioned in Source J as previously indicated.
  
  Source E presents a vivid picture of idolatry in the northern kingdom (the ten tribes) which Jacob, the father of the tribes, had previously rejected and ordered to be removed (Gen. 35:2). This source was concerned with presenting the fathers in a more acceptable way and with finding excuses for their weaknesses. Compare what was mentioned in Source E in (Gen. 20) and what was mentioned in Source J in Genesis (26:6-11). The subject of God’s covenant with Israel is one of the most important subjects addressed by this source.
  
  Some of those who adopt the theory of sources believe that Source E was written by a person or group of people who came from the north and lived in this region and had knowledge of the worship systems that were prevalent there (the pagan Canaanite worship). See what was mentioned about Bethel and Shechem in Genesis 28:17, 31:13, 33:19-20. And about Joseph, son of Jacob, who plays an important and fundamental role in the origin of the northern kingdom (Ephraim and Manasseh), and the source E is unique in presenting a vivid historical picture of God’s love and complete obedience to Him (the story of Abraham and the offering of his son Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22: 1-14,
  
  the source D
  
  The Deutronomist Document
  This source is mostly related to the Book of Deuteronomy, and the important note here is that the Book of the Law, which was pressed during the days of Josiah, represents the largest part of the Book of Deuteronomy (2 Kings 22: 3-23: 25), due to the great similarity between Josiah’s terms and the words mentioned in Deuteronomy (2 Kings 23: 4-6, Deuteronomy 2: 1-7), which are related to the center of worship of Jehun in the city of Jerusalem and the commandment not to seek after other strange gods and worship them... Some of those who adopt this theory see that the source D represents a group of sermons more than being historical events and appeared in a time before King Josiah, that is, during the reign of Manasseh, King of Judah, in the early 7th century BC (695 BC) and appeared in the form of a set of warnings to meet the urgent need in the reign of Manasseh
  
  Source P
  
  The Priestly Document
  Source P presents a set of laws and rulings at different stages of Israel’s history, and it also presents a vivid picture of Judaism in the post-exile period… Source P constitutes the last part of Exodus (25, 31, 35, 40), the entire Book of Leviticus, and the greater part of the Book of Numbers, along with what is mentioned about ritual worship in the Book of Judges and the First Book of Samuel. The source also includes ancient historical material related to the ten generations mentioned in the Book of Genesis and the covenant with Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, all of which are attributed to Source P. However, the final formulation of the source, as these scholars believe, appeared at the time of the exodus… The date of this source dates back to between 500-450 BC, and therefore Source P is no longer a detailed history of the ritual worship of the people of Israel, the importance of this worship, and its value in bringing this people closer to God and eliminating the gap between them and the holy Jehovah (“And be holy, even as I also am holy” Leviticus 19:2))))

  

  
  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  And we read from the Encyclopedia Britannica
  
  ((The documentary hypothesis
  Beyond these obvious discrepancies, modern literary analysis and criticism of the texts has pointed up significant differences in style, vocabulary, and content, apparently indicating a variety of original sources for the first four books, as well as an independent origin for Deuteronomy. According to this view, the Tetrateuch is a redaction primarily of three documents: the Yahwist, or J (after the German spelling of Yahweh); Priestly code, or P. They refer, respectively, to passages in which the Hebrew personal name for God, YHWH (commonly transcribed “Yahweh”), is predominantly used, those in which the Hebrew generic term for God, Elohim, is predominantly used. , and those (also Elohist) in which the priestly style or interest is predominant According to this hypothesis, these documents—along with Deuteronomy (labelled D)—constituted the original sources of the Pentateuch. On the basis of internal evidence, it has been inferred that J and E are the oldest sources (perhaps going as far back as the 10th century BCE), probably in that order, and D and P the more recent ones (to about the 5th century BCE). Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are considered compilations of J, E, and P, with Leviticus assigned to P and Deuteronomy to D.
  
  The Yahwist, or J, is the master of narrative in biblical literature, who sketches people by means of stories. He takes his materials wherever he finds them, and if some are crude he does not care, as long as they make a good story. The book of Genesis, for example, contains the story of Abraham's passing off his wife as his sister, so if the king took her as a concubine he would honor her supposed brother instead of having her husband killed, a story told by J without any moralistic homily. Not given to subtle theological speculations, J nearly always refers to the Deity as YHWH, by his specifically Israelite personal name (usually rendered “the Lord” in English translations), though he is not hidebound and also employs the term Elohim (“God” ), especially when non-Hebrews are speaking or being addressed. He presents God as one who acts and speaks like human persons, a being with whom they have direct intercourse. The Yahwist, however, has one very definite theological (or theo-political) preoccupation: to establish Israel's divinely bestowed right to the land of Canaan.
  
  More reflective and theological in the apologetic sense is the Elohist, or E. No fragment of E on the primeval history (presented in the first 11 chapters of Genesis) has been preserved, and it is probable that none ever existed but that the Elohist began his account with the patriarchs (presented in the remainder of Genesis, in which the J and E strands are combined). The first passage that can be assigned to E with reasonable certainty is chapter 20 of Genesis, which parallels the two J variants of the “She is my sister” story noted above. Unlike these, he tries to mitigate the offensiveness of the subterfuge: though the patriarch did endanger the honor of his wife to save his life, his statement was not untrue but merely (deliberately) misleading. The Elohist is also distinct from the Yahwist in generally avoiding the presentation of God as being like a human person and treating him instead as a more remote, less directly accessible being. Significantly, E avoids using the term YHWH throughout Genesis (with one apparent exception), and it is only after telling how God revealed his proper name to Moses, in chapter 3 of Exodus, that he refers to God as YHWH regularly, though not exclusively . This account (paralleled in the P strand in chapter 6 of Exodus) is apparently based on a historical recollection of Moses' paramount role in establishing the religion of YHWH among the Israelites (the former Hebrew slaves). Also noteworthy is E's choice of the term prophet for Abraham and his characterization of a prophet as one who is an effective intercessor with God on behalf of others. This is in line with his speculations on the unique character of Moses as the great intercessor as compared with other prophets (and also with Joshua as Moses' attendant).
  
  It is inferred from certain internal evidence that E was produced in the northern kingdom (Israel) in the 8th century BCE and was later combined with J. Because it is not always possible or important to separate J from E, the two together are commonly referred to as JE.
  
  The third major document of the Tetrateuch, the Priestly code, or P, is very different from the other two. Its narrative is frequently interrupted by detailed ritual instructions, by bodies of standing laws of a ritual character, and by dry and exhaustive genetic lists of the generations. According to one theory, the main author of P seems to have worked in the 7th century and to have been the editor who combined the J and E narratives; For his own part, he is content to add some brief, drab records—with frequent dates—of births, marriages, and migrations. The P material is to be found not merely in Leviticus but throughout the Tetrateuch, including the early chapters of Genesis and one of the creation accounts and ranging from the primeval history (Adam to Noah) to the Mosaic era. Like the Elohist, P uses the term Elohim for God until the self-naming of God to Moses (Exodus, chapter 3, in the P strand) and shows a non-anthropomorphic transcendent stress.
  The Deuteronomist, or D, has a distinctive hortatory style and vocabulary, calling for Israel's conformity with YHWH's covenant laws and stressing his election of Israel as his special people (for a detailed consideration of D, see below Deuteronomy: Introductory discourse). Deuteronomist or the Deuteronomic school is also attributed the authorship of the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), which scholars call the “Deuteronomic history.”)
  
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/bib.. .ent-literature