Was Al-Fatihah distorted by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan and the response to the fabrication of Ibn Masoud’s Mushaf

 

On the authority of al-Zuhri that it reached him ((( and I repeat ))) --- it reached him --- that the Prophet, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah and his son Yazid used to recite Malik Yawm al-Din. Al-Zuhri said : The first one to innovate : Malik was Marwan.


In response, we say :

1- I think that the wording of the hadith is sufficient and every intelligent person understands by the allusion (( if he is intelligent at all ))
2- Ibn Kathir said, commenting on what al-Zuhri said : Marwan had knowledge of the correctness of what he recited, Ibn Shihab did not see it, meaning that what al-Zuhri said is wrong and his statement is not supported

. The question now is what is the evidence for what Ibn Kathir said??

3- Narrations were also reported by those who transmitted the hadith of Al-Zuhri that the Prophet used to recite : “Malik Yawm Al-Din” without an alif

, on the authority of Umm Salamah, that she mentioned the recitation of the Messenger of Allah : “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Malik Yawm Al-Din,” cutting his recitation verse by verse. And on her authority also, she said : The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to cut his recitation, saying : “Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,” then he would stop, “Al-Rahman, the Most Merciful,” then he would stop. And it was He reads it : “King of the Day of Judgment.” 4- The Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an all agreed on writing “ king ” like this without an alif, and this writing is possible for both readings, with extension and shortening .

Fayd al-Mannan in response to those who claimed that al-Hajjaj distorted Uthman’s Qur’an

:

Praise be to God, and peace be upon His chosen servants.

And after that , the

Christians raise the suspicion that Al-Hajjaj distorted and changed the Qur’an when he came to punctuate it
. Here is the suspicion quoted from their website :

Al-Hajjaj changed the letters of the Qur’an and changed at least ten words, and Al-Sijistani wrote a book called “ What Al-Hajjaj Changed in Uthman’s Qur’an .”


In response, we say :

1- The rational evidence : How can it be that if Al-Hajjaj changed these letters, no one among the memorizers would criticize him??
Or do the Christians want to convince us that no one memorized the Quran during the days of Al-Hajjaj?

2- The textual evidence : First , the story of the dotting of the Qurans is not as the Christians narrated it, but rather it is as follows (( as mentioned in Madahil Al-Irfan, Part One, from page 280 to page 281))

Al-Zarqani said : It is known that the Uthmanic Quran was not dotted ... Whether this or that, the dotting of the Qurans did not occur, according to the popular opinion , except during the reign of Abdul Malik bin Marwan , so Abdul Malik bin Marwan ordered Al-Hajjaj to take care of this great matter, and Al - Hajjaj, in obedience to the Commander of the Faithful, appointed two men for this, who are

:

1- Nasr bin Asim Al-Laithi
2- Yahya bin Ya’mar Al-Adwani

, and they are the students of Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du’ali.

The question now is, is this the first dotted Quran
???? We say no, because Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du’ali punctuated the Mushaf , and Ibn Sirin had a punctuated Mushaf , but both Mushafs were specific, not general.


As for what was raised about Al-Hajjaj’s distortion of the Mushafs, here is the full narration :

On the authority of Abbad bin Suhaib, on the authority of Awf bin Abi Jamila, that Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf changed eleven letters in Uthman’s Mushaf . He said : In Surah Al-Baqarah : 259, it was { It was not possible for you to look } without a ha’, so he changed it to “ It was not possible for you to look ”.
In Surah Al-Ma’idah : 48, it was { A law and a way } , so he changed it to “ A law and a way ” .
In Surah Yunus : 22, it was { He is the One who resurrects you } , so he changed it to “ He guides you ”.
In Surah Yusuf : 45, it was { I will bring you its interpretation } , so he changed it to “I will inform you of its interpretation .”
It was in Az-Zukhruf : 32 { We have divided among them their livelihood } , so he changed it to “ their livelihood .”
It was in At-Takwir : 24 { And he is not suspicious of the unseen } , so he changed it to { stingy }… etc. The book “ Al-Masahif ” by Al- Sijistani ( p. 49). And here is the ruling on Abbad bin Suhaib : 1- Ali bin Al-Madini said : His hadith is gone. 2- Al-Bukhari said : He is rejected. 3- Al-Tirmidhi said : He is rejected. 4- Ibn Hibban said : He was a Qadari preacher, and despite that he narrated things that if a beginner in this profession heard them he would testify to their fabrication. 5- Al-Dhahabi said : He is rejected and the narration is fabricated . And here is the opinion of the Rafidah on this matter : Al-Khoei - who is one of the Rafidah - said : This claim resembles the delirium of the feverish and the fables of the insane. How could this great sermon not be mentioned by a historian in Its history, and no critic in its criticism despite its importance, and the many reasons for transmitting it? And how did not a single Muslim at his time discuss its transmission? And how did the Muslims ignore this work after the end of the era of Al-Hajjaj and the end of his authority? Even if he was able to collect all the copies of the Qur’an, and not a single copy from the distant Muslim countries deviated from his ability, would he have been able to remove it from the hearts of the Muslims and the memorizers of the Qur’an, whose number at that time is only counted by God . And by the way :

Imam Al-Sijistani did not write a book called

“ What Al-Hajjaj changed in Uthman’s Mushaf . ” All that is there is that Imam Al-Sijistani translated the aforementioned narration from Al-Hajjaj by saying : ( Chapter on what Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf wrote in the Mushaf ).

The Lord’s abundance in response to those who claimed that there are two additional surahs in the Mushaf of Ubayy ibn Ka’b

:

Praise be to God, and peace be upon His chosen servants.

The ignorant Christians said :

1- On the authority of Al-A'mash, he said : In the recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka'b : O Allah, we seek Your aid and ask Your forgiveness . We praise You and do not disbelieve in You . We renounce and abandon those who disbelieve in You . O Allah, You alone we worship . To You we pray and prostrate . To You we hasten and hasten . We hope for Your mercy and fear Your punishment . Indeed, Your punishment will overtake the disbelievers .

2- On the authority of Ibn Sirin, he said : Ubayy ibn Ka'b wrote in his copy of the Qur'an the opening chapter of the Book and the two chapters of refuge, and O Allah, we seek Your aid and O Allah, You alone we worship. Ibn Mas'ud left them out, and Uthman wrote from them the opening chapter of the Book and the two chapters of refuge.
And on the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, he used to recite the two chapters in supplication, and he mentioned them, and that he used to write them in his copy of the Qur'an.

3- On the authority of Abdur-Rahman ibn Abza, he said : In the copy of the Qur'an of Ibn Abbas, the recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Abu Musa : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful . O Allah, we seek Your aid and ask for Your forgiveness . We praise You well and do not disbelieve in You . We renounce and abandon those who disbelieve in You . It says : O Allah, You alone do we worship . To You we pray and prostrate . To You we hasten and hasten . We fear Your punishment and hope for Your mercy . Indeed , Your punishment will overtake the disbelievers . 4- It was also reported that some of the companions used to recite these two surahs in qunut

:
On the authority of Omar bin Al-Khattab that he recited qunut after bowing, and said : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful . O Allah, we seek Your aid and ask for Your forgiveness. We praise You and do not disbelieve in You . We renounce and abandon those who disbelieve in You . In the name of Allah , the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful . O Allah, You alone do we worship . To You we pray and prostrate . To You we hasten and hasten . We hope for Your mercy and fear Your punishment . Your severe punishment is upon the unbelievers. In response to these ignorant people, we say


:

1- I want any Christian genius to mention to me one of these narrations and prove to me that it is authentic.

Just to give an example, the first narration is from the book Gharib al-Hadith wa al-Athar by Ibn al-Athir. As

usual, you will not find Christians except ignorant people who do not know which hadith to accept .... or ignorant people who do not know anything about the science of hadith at all.

2- Is Qunut from the Qur’an???? !!!!

3- The companions used to include in their copies of the Qur’an things that were not Qur’an, such as interpretations, meanings, and supplications, based on the fact that it was not difficult for them to believe that they were not Qur’an. This is what Ubayy ibn Ka’b did .

4- Some of this supplication was from the revealed Qur’an, then it was abrogated, and supplication with it was permitted, and things that were not Qur’an were mixed with it, so Ubayy included this supplication.

5-It was narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka’b that his reading was narrated by Nafi’, Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, and others, and it does not contain the two Surahs of Al-Hafd and Al-Khal’ - as is well known.

6 - Also, his copy of the Qur’an was in agreement with the copy of the group.
Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari said : I saw the copy of the Qur’an of Anas in Basra, with some of his descendants, and I found it to be equal to the copy of the group. The descendants of Anas used to narrate that it was the handwriting of Anas and the dictation of Ubayy ibn Ka’b.

Fayd Al-Ma'bud in response to the doubt about Ibn Masoud's Mushaf

:

Praise be to God, and peace be upon His chosen servants.

, Now after

this doubt that the Christians and the Quranists before them raise is nothing but evidence of their ignorance and we will prove through responding to them that by raising this doubt they have themselves responded to all the doubts that they themselves raised !!!!!

We now mention the hadith from Bukhari :

On the authority of Zur bin Hubaish who said : I asked Ubayy bin Kaab, I said, O Abu al-Mundhir, your brother Ibn Masoud says such and such. My
father said, I asked the Messenger of Allah, and he said to me : It was said to me, so I said
, then we say as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said.

The hadith ends from Bukhari’s narration .

Of course, the obvious question now is : Where is Ibn Masoud’s denial????
The hadith was mentioned vaguely and did not contain any explicit statement at all !!!

Here is the comment of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Al-Fath.
He said, may God have mercy on him:

The hadith was mentioned in an ambiguous manner, and I thought that it was al-Bukhari who made it ambiguous, but I went back to al-Ismaili’s narration and found it also ambiguous, meaning that it did not contain any explicit statement !!! Of course, the Christians and their brothers among the Quranists will now smell the scent of false victory and accuse us of ignorance, because the explicit statement was mentioned in the narration of Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, where the hadith came as follows : (( Your brother is scratching it from the Qur’an ))

And in a narration by Imam Ahmad also

(( Abdullah did not write the two Mu’awwidhat in his Qur’an ))

And in a narration in the additions of the Musnad

(( Ibn Masoud used to copy them from his copy of the Qur’an and say that they are not from the Book of Allah ))

I said : So the Christians and the Qur’anists now recognize what is called (( combining the paths of hadith )),

so they interpret the hadith of Bukhari with the hadith of Musnad al-Imam Ahmad and they make the hadith of Imam Ahmad binding on the hadith of Bukhari
if the Christians and their Qur’anic brothers agree with us on that, then I say that all doubts have now ended because their problem is cutting up the verses and hadiths and not combining the paths of hadith.
I will give you an example of the hadith (( I have only come to you with slaughtering )) This hadith is in Musnad al-Imam Ahmad and it has an explanation in Sahih al-Bukhari. So if you read the two hadiths, you will understand the meaning of the hadith of Musnad al-Imam Ahmad. So if we address the ignorant Christians and their brothers about that, they say ( No , we do not accept this, rather we want an explanation for each hadith separately !!!)

Then now they combine the methods of hadith to prove what they call the doubt.

!!!!


In general and in any case we say with the help of Allah :

The response to them with one hadith , and this response is sufficient to completely remove the doubt and remove it,
and the response is in the form of a hadith in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad as well, which is : On the authority of Zur bin Hubaish, he said : I said to Ubayy bin Ka’b that Ibn Mas’ud did not write the two Mu’awwidhat in his Mushaf, so he said: I bear witness that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, informed 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 bless him and grant him peace, said.

What do you think of this hadith?
Of course, Christians and their brothers will rejoice and say that this is evidence of the doubt.

I say, rather this is evidence of your ignorance
, for Al-Tabarani narrated in Al-Awsat that Ibn Masoud said the same as what Abi said !!! So what do you think??
That is, Ibn Masoud proved that they are from the Quran !!!

And here the infidels among the Quranists revolted and one of them said, rather the speaker in the hadith of Al-Tabarani is Abi bin Kaab, and (( reversals )) occurred with the narrator, and he provided evidence with what Al-Hafiz said in Al-Fath when he said (( And perhaps the speaker is Abi, and a reversal occurred with the narrator ))

I said : First, Ibn Hajar says this from the point of view of reconciling the two hadiths, and Ibn Hajar did not confirm the statement that the hadith was reversal on its narrator, but rather he said (( perhaps )) and the text of Ibn Hajar’s statement is (( And it was mentioned in Al-Awsat that Ibn Masoud also said the same, and it is well-known that it is from the statement of Abi, so perhaps it is a reversal from the narrator ))

So the ignorant people used the word perhaps as confirmation !!!! It seems that we are facing a compound ignorance of religious sciences and ignorance of linguistic sciences


in general. Let us move to another point, which is :

All the hadiths in this story are about Zur ibn Hubaish and they are all on his tongue, meaning that there is no explicit statement from Ibn Masoud.
For example : There is not a single hadith, for example, that says about Zur on the authority of Ibn Masoud that he said : The two Mu’awwidhat ...

In general, we are still with the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, in which the Christians completely ignored this hadith.

:
Sufyan ibn Uyaynah narrated to us on the authority of Abdah and Asim on the authority of Zur , who said: I said to my father : Your brother recites them from the Mushaf, and he did not deny it. It was said :
Ibn Masoud.
He said: Yes, and they are not in the Mushaf of Ibn Masoud. He used to see the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reciting them for protection over Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn , but he did not hear him recite them in any of his prayers, so he thought that they were two incantations of protection and insisted on his assumption. The rest confirmed that they were from the Qur’an, so they deposited them with him .

This hadith is the interpretation of Zur and Sufyan that Ibn Masoud ((( thought ))) that they were not from the Qur’an. Why did he think so? Because he did not hear the Prophet recite them .... Where????
In prayer ?... And the interpretation of this will come later.

I said : All and all of these hadiths are as we mentioned from the path of Zur ibn Hubaish, and Zur used to ask Ibn Masoud a lot about the issue, but he did not understand from him, so he would return to Ubayy ibn Ka’b and ask him, either to increase his understanding or to be sure.

An example of this is also from Musnad al-Imam Ahmad :

The Hadith of Destiny,
the Hadith of the Night of Destiny.

So these hadiths that mention the two Mu’awwidhat are all inferences from a button, so :

1- Al-Nawawi in his explanation of Al-Muhadhdhab
, Ibn Hazm in Al-Mahalli
, Fakhr Al-Razi in the beginning of his interpretation,
and Al-Baqillani


have agreed that these hadiths (( i.e. the hadiths of Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad )) are anomalous (( in the text, I mean, not the chain of transmission of course ))

and here is their evidence :

1- In the chains of transmission of the ten readings there are readings that revolve around Abdullah bin Masoud , and we did not find in these readings any denial of the two Mu’awwidhat, and the owners of these readings are :
the reading of Abu Amr Al-Basri,
Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud,
Hamza bin Habib Al-Zayyat,
Ali bin Hamza Al-Kisa’i,
Ya’qub bin Ishaq Al-Hadrami, Khalaf bin
Hisham Al-Bazzar,

for none of them denied the two Mu’awwidhat, even though they all took from Abdullah bin Masoud !!! (( Al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr ))

2- Ibn Mas’ud did not memorize the entire Quran, and it was said that he learned it after the death of the Prophet, and it was said that he died without completing it (( Al-Qurtubi ))
3- That is, Ibn Mas’ud was a reader and not a memorizer like Zaid bin Thabit, so he took from Ibn Mas’ud in reading and not in memorization. If Ibn Mas’ud took 70 surahs from the mouth of the Messenger of God, then Zaid took the entire Quran from him, may God bless him and grant him peace, and we will explain that in detail in a separate post, God willing.

4- The Mushaf of Ibn Masoud was not a comprehensive Mushaf, but rather some Surahs were written in it and others were not written. An example of this is his not writing Al-Fatihah.

5- The Mushaf of Ibn Masoud was his own Mushaf and he used to write in it only what he heard from the Prophet in prayer. The evidence for that is :
A- The order of the Surahs in his Mushaf is Al-Baqarah, then An - Nisa, then Al-Imran, because the Prophet prayed with them in the night prayer in this order.
B- Ibn Masoud not writing Al-Fatihah is the biggest evidence for that. When he was asked why he did not write Al-Fatihah, he said: If I wanted to write it, I would have written it at the beginning of every Surah.
When do Muslims recite Al-Fatihah
at the beginning of every Surah? Of course, that only happens in the prayer recited aloud, which proves that Ibn Masoud used to write only what he heard from the Prophet in prayer. C-
His not writing Al-Fatihah is also evidence that he (may Allah be pleased with him) did not write the entire Qur’an in his Mushaf, but rather it was his own Mushaf.

6- We do not have a single explicit Hadith in which Ibn Masoud says that he denies the two Mu’awwidhatayn.

7- The narrator said : “ And he used to scratch them from his copies of the Qur’an .” So what are the copies of the Qur’an of Ibn Masoud?
Did he write more than one copy of the Qur’an, may God be pleased with him?
And if he was the one who wrote them, then why did he scratch what he wrote? Or rather, why did he write what he scratched?

8- Why did Ibn Masoud’s denial of Uthman or Zaid (may Allah be pleased with them) not spread? And we did not hear any of the companions denouncing him or that he denounced any of the companions?


As for those who went to authenticate these hadiths, they answered by saying :

1- What is meant by the two Mu’awwidhat is the wording, meaning that what was written, for example, was the two Mu’awwidhat : Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak ...

Ibn Masoud used to order the recitation of the wording, not the recitation of the surah itself. The evidence for that is:

:

Ibn Abi Dawood narrated on the authority of Abu Jamrah, who said: I brought Ibrahim a copy of my Qur’an in which was written:

Surah such and such and Surah such and such verse , then Ibrahim said: Erase this , for Ibn Masoud hated this and said: Do not mix with the Book of God what is not from it.

(( And it is the same wording of Ibn Masoud (( if it is authentic )) in the two Mu’awwidhat )) So they went that his intention, may God be pleased with him, was to recite the name and not to recite the surah, especially since it was never explicitly mentioned in any hadith by saying (( Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak or Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, they are not from the Qur’an ))

The author of Manahil al-Irfan went that Ibn Masoud saw it written in the wrong place or written incorrectly, so he ordered it to be recite (( i.e. corruption in composition or corruption in organization ))..... (( Manahil al-Irfan ))

Al-Baqillani said that Ibn Masoud denied that they were in the Mushaf and not the Qur’an.

.... (( If the Quranists who claim to be the people of the Quran do not know the difference between the Quran and the Mushaf, then this is another calamity !!))

Al-Razi said that he denied it, then it was repeated to him, so he confirmed it.

.....(( Al-Razi’s interpretation ))

The conclusion is that there is not a single piece of evidence for Ibn Masoud’s denial of Al-Fatihah or Al-Mu’awwidhat, whether in Al-Bukhari or elsewhere, and all of this evidence indicates one of two things:
1- Either the text of the hadith is odd, and this is in the hadith of Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad.
2- Either its interpretation is

odd, and as for Al-Bukhari’s hadith, its wording was mentioned ambiguously, and Al-Bukhari’s hadith does not explain odd hadiths in the text, or a hadith does not explain it with an odd interpretation.
In both cases, this proves to us one thing : the ignorance of the Quranists and their Christian brothers, a compound ignorance

, and thus their argument is weak and their mother is in the abyss.