Muhammad's False Prophecies [Response to Hesham Azmy, Part 2]

Mr. Shamoun wrote

On the Roman Conquest of Persia S. 30:2-4: "The Roman Empire has been defeated -

in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious - within

a few years." As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over

the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet there are fundamental problems with this

alleged prophecy:

According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for "a few years," Bidh'un, signifies

a period of three to nine years; yet according to some scholars the victory did not come until

nearly twelve years later. The Persians defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at

about A.D. 614 or 615. The Byzantine counter-offensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the

victory was not complete until A.D. 625, making it a period between ten to eleven years,

not "a few years" alluded to in the Quran.

I first quote the passage under discussion

"The Roman Empire has been defeated in a land close by; but they, (even) after

(This) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious within a few years. With God is the

Decision, in the Past and in the Future: On that day shall the Believers rejoice with the

victory of God. He helps whom He will, and He is Exalted in Might, Most Merciful. (It is)

the promise of God. Never does God depart From His promise: But most men understand

not." (Holy Qur'an 30:2-6)

This passage was revealed after the defeat of Romans before the Persians, this took

place in 614-15 A.D. For the next seven years, Romans were losing their cities to the

Persians and there were no way to predict the Romans would stand up again. In 622, Emperor

Heraclius transported his army through the Egean Sea and unexpectedly defeated the Persian

army in the decisive battle of Issus. So, the prophecy indeed came true and Romans became

victorious after 7 years. This victory was not transient, Romans moved forward and

restored all what they had lost and launched their campaign toward the heart of Persia.

The title of "On the Roman Conquest of Persia" is deceptive, the prophecy

talked about Romans being permanently victorious after their defeat within 3-9 years and

this did take place as the Qur'an said. The extension of this victory is irrelevant to the

prophecy, yet it proved that the victory was permanent as the Qur'an said.

Heraclius found the empire in domestic turmoil. The Slavs threatened in the Balkans,

the Persians and Visigoths in Asia Minor; in 615 the Persians reached the Bosporous, and

in 619 they conquered Egypt. At first, Heraclius concentrated on internal reorganization

of the empire. Then, in 622, he left Constantinople to begin a counterattack against the

Persians. His military reforms bore fruit WHEN HE DESTROYED THE PERSIAN ARMY

AT NINEVAH IN 627

. (bold and capital emphasis mine)

... In 614 Khosrows army entered Jerusalem, sacked the Holy Sepulchre,

and carried off the "True Cross" to the Sassanian capital at Ctesiphon. In 617

the Persians took Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople. Not until the forces of Emperor

Heraclius crossed the Black Sea and took the offensive in the east were the armies of

Khosrow and his chief general, Shahrbaraz, defeated in a series of brilliant campaigns

(622-625).

In 626, Khosrows army, now rallied under his general Shahin, besieged

Constantinople. But Heraclius again invaded Persian by way of Armenia and marched on the

royal residence of Dastagird, from which Khosrow fled. A dynastic revolution led to

Khosrows execution in 628-an end, as poets sang, that was the more ignominious for

the glory lost. (bold and capital emphasis mine)

In 614 the Persians conquered Syria and Palestine, taking Jerusalem and what was

believed to be Christs Cross, and in 619 occupied Egypt and Libya

In 622, clad as a penitent and bearing a sacred image of the Virgin, he left

Constantinople, as prayers rose from its many sanctuaries for victory over the Persian

Zoroastrians, the recovery of the Cross, and the reconquest of Jerusalem

The next two years he devoted to campaigns in Armenia, the manpower of which was vital

to the empire, and to a devastating invasion of Persia. In 625 Heraclius retired to

Anatolia. He had encamped on the west bank of the Sarus River when the Persian forces

appeared on the opposite bank. Many of his men rushed impetuously across the bridge and

were ambushed and annihilated by the enemy.

Emerging from his tent, Heraclius saw the triumphant Persians crossing the bridge. The

fate of the Empire hung in the balance. Seizing his sword, he ran to the bridge and struck

down the Persian leader. His soldiers closed rank behind him and beat back the foe.

In 626 the Persians advanced to the Bosporus, hoping to join the Avars in an

assault on the land walls of Constantinople. But the Romans sank the primitive Avar fleet

that was to transport Persian units across Bosporus and repelled the unsupported Avar

assault. Heraclius again invaded Persia and in December 627, after a march across

the Armenian highlands into the Tigris plain, met the Persians near the ruins of

Nineveh. There, astride his renowned war-horse, he killed three Persian generals in

single combat, charged into enemy ranks at the head of his troops, killed the Persian

commander, and scattered the Persian host

.

A month later, Heraclius entered Dastagird with its stupendous treasure. Khosrow was

overthrown by his son, with whom Heraclius made peace, DEMANDING ONLY THE RETURN OF THE

CROSS, the captives, AND CONQUERED ROMAN TERRITORY

. Returning to Constantinople in

triumph, he was hailed s a Moses, an Alexander, a Scipio. IN 630 HE PERSONALLY RESTORED

THE CROSS TO THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE IN JERUSALEM

. (bold and capital emphasis

mine)

A second invasion of Mesopotamia, by Khosrows ablest general, Shahrbaraz, took

place in 613. Damascus was taken in that year, and in 614 Jerusalem fell. The Holy

Sepulchre was destroyed and the True Cross carried to Ctesiphon. Although Khosrow himself

was generally tolerant of Christianity, Shahrbaraz permitted thousands of Christian

prisoners to be tortured by his Jewish aides

This tide of conquest was turned by Heraclius in a series of brilliant campaigns between

622 and 627

. Since he retained command of the sea, Heraclius was able to sail to Issus

and rout the Persian Army near the Armenian border. In alliance with the Khazar kingdom to

the north of the Caucasus, he invaded Armenia again in 623, gaining victory over

the Kings army near Canzaca. The town and fire temple were destroyed, together with

the temple at Lake Urmia, traditionally associated with Zoroaster. The campaigns of 624

and 625

ranged across northern Syria and Mesopotamia and culminated in a reversal for

Shahrbaraz forces on the river Saras.

Khosrow rallied his forces in 626 and, in alliance with the Avars, a people who

were also in conflict with Byzantium at this time, sent one army to besiege Constantinople

and another to oppose Heraclius. Constantinople held, and Shahin was defeated: the Persian

second force was outmanoevred in 628 by Heraclius brave dash to Dastagird,

the royal residence 70 miles (113 kilometres) north of Ctesiphon. An important but

indecisive battle was fought near Nineveh, but, as the Byzantine army reapproached

Dastagird, Khosrow fled. His letters calling Shahrbaraz to his aid had been intercepted,

and, although his resources were now drastically reduced, he refused peace terms.

Khosrows prestige was now shattered, and he was now sick. The execution of

Sharhbaraz and the desecration of Shahins corpse were followed by revolution in the

royal household. Khosrow was condemned to death and executed (628), and his

youngest son and heir, Mardanshah, was murdered before his eyes. His eldest son, Kavadh

(Qobad) II. Sheroe, signed the peace

. (bold emphasis mine)

This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under

Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 - 6 years before the Hegira). However, the defeat of the

Persians should take place soon"in a small number of years". In the light

of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction

would be fulfilled within three years, but he was corrected by Mohammed who stated that

the "small number" is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi).

Muslims

tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact,

however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi commentary).

That was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed. Consequently this passage does not

qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between prophecy and fulfilment was far

too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable. (Gerhard Nehls, Christians

Ask Muslims

[Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992],

pp. 70-71; bold emphasis ours)

The title of "On the Roman Conquest of Persia" is deceptive, the prophecy

talked about ROMANS BEING PERMANENTLY VICTORIOUS AFTER THEIR DEFEAT within 3-9 years

and this did take place as the Quran said. The extension of this victory is

irrelevant to the prophecy, yet it proved that the victory was permanent as the

Quran said.

... In 622, Emperor Heraclius transported his army through the Egean Sea and

unexpectedly defeated the Persian army in the decisive battle of Issus. So, the prophecy

indeed came true and Romans became victorious after 7 years

"This victory was not transient, Romans moved forward and restored all what

they had lost and launched their campaign toward the heart of Persia."

"... The extension of this victory is irrelevant to the prophecy, yet it

proved that the victory was permanent as the Qur'an said."

"Bidhun in the text means a short period -a period of from three to nine

years. The period between the loss of Jerusalem (614-15) by the Romans and their victory

at Issus (622) was seven years, AND THAT TO THE PENETRATION OF PERSIA

BY HERACLIUS WAS NINE YEARS

."

16. In these desperate circumstances Heraclius conceived a brilliant plan. He knew that

the Persians were weak in sea power. He used his sea power to attack them in the rear. In

622 (the year of the Hijra) he transported his army by sea through the AEgean Sea

to the bay just south of the Taurus Mountains. He fought a decisive battle with the

Persians at Issus, in the same plain in which Alexander the Great had defeated the

Persians of his day in his famous march to Syria and Egypt. The Persians were taken by

surprise and routed. BUT THEY HAD STILL A LARGE FORCE IN ASIA MINOR, which they

could have brought into play against the Romans if Heraclius had not made ANOTHER and

equally unexpected dash by sea from the north. He returned to Constantinople by sea, made

a treaty with the Avars, and with this help kept the Persians at bay round the capital. Then

he led THREE CAMPAIGNS, IN 623, 624 AND 625

, along the southern shore of the Black Sea

and took the Persians again in the rear in the region round Trebizond and Kars.

Through Armenia he penetrated into Persia and got into Mesopotamia. He was now in a

position to strike AT THE VERY HEART OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. A DECISIVE BATTLE WAS FOUGHT

ON THE TIGRIS NEAR THE CITY OF MOSUL IN DECEMBER 627.

Before this battle, however, he

had taken care to get the alliance of the Turks and with their help to relieve

Constantinople IN 626 against the Persians and the treacherous Avars who had then

joined the Persians.

17. Heraclius CELEBRATED HIS TRIUMPH IN CONSTANTINOPLE IN MARCH 628. PEACE

WAS THEN MADE BETWEEN THE TWO EMPIRES ON THE BASIS OF THE STATUS QUO ANTE.

Heraclius, in pursuance of a vow he had made, went south in the autumn to Emessa (Hims)

and from there marched on foot to Jerusalem TO CELEBRATE HIS VICTORIES, AND RESTORE TO

ITS PLACE THE HOLY CROSS WHICH HAD BEEN CARRIED AWAY BY THE PERSIANS AND WAS RETURNED TO

THE EMPEROR AS A CONDITION OF PEACE

. Heracliuss [sic] route was strewn

with costly carpets, AND HE THOUGHT THAT THE FINAL DELIVERANCE HAD COME FOR HIS PEOPLE

AND HIS EMPIRE

(Ali, The Holy Quran, Translation and Commentary,

appendix X, pp. 1073-1074; bold and capital emphasis ours)

It is noteworthy THAT THE PROGRESSIVE ROMAN VICTORY IN 624 was synchronous with

Muslims' victory over Pagans in Badr battle and this is the fulfillment of the second part

of the prophecy that reads "On that day shall the Believers rejoice with the

victory of God. He helps whom He wills."

Amazingly, Mr. Shamoun was very brief in this aspect. Though, he elaborated on an

eccentric interpretation that glaringly opposes authentic Islamic traditions.

Mr. Shamoun quoted Yusuf Ali saying, "According

to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for "a few years," Bidh'un, signifies a

period of three to nine years". According to Yusuf Ali, the

prophecy was perfectly fulfilled. He wrote ...

"Bidh'un in the text means a short period -a period of from three to nine years. TThe

period between the loss of Jerusalem (614-15) by the Romans and their victory at Issus

(622) was seven years, and that to the penetration of Persia by Heraclius was nine

years."

Abdullah Yusuf Ali used Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman

Empire", A. J. Butlers "Arab conquest of Egypt"

(Oxford, 1902) and others as references.

Mr. Shamoun wrote:

The original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna,

"they shall defeat," could easily have been rendered, with the change of two

vowels, Sayughlabuna, "they (i.e. Romans) shall be defeated." Since vowel points

were not added until some time after this event, it could have been quite possible for a

scribe to deliberately tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement.

This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi. C.G. Pfander mentions Baidawi's

comments on the variant readings surrounding this passage:

"But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us

of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu'r Rum. He tells us that some read

(Arabic text appears here) instead of the usual (Arabic text appears here) and (Arabic text

appears here) instead of (Arabic text appears here). The

rendering will then be: 'The Byzantines have conquered in the nearest part of the land,

and they shall be defeated in a small number of years'. If this be the correct reading,

the whole story about Abu Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable, since Ubai was dead long

before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories

which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are. The

explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became conquerors of 'the

well-watered land of Syria' (Arabic text appears here) and that the passage predicted that

the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records

the 'descent' of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the

passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel points were not

used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which

of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the

date at which the verses were 'sent down', (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning,

that it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was

fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's prophetic

office." (C. G. Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq - The Balance of Truth, revised and enlarged

by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18, A-9503, Villach Austria], 279-280)

[emphasis ours]

This being the case, a Muslim cannot confidently

tell us what the true reading of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse

originally predicted the Byzantine victory over the Persians. Yet either rendering leaves

us with a false prophecy within the Quran.

So, when they cannot refute the prophecy, they claim that Muslims fabricated it. Very

convenient!

The Quran was first orally transmitted by

hundreds of reciters, this means that

no one could change the meaning while others are asleep because other reciters of the

Quran would quickly recognize the flaw. This is not the case with written

transmission that is more liable to corruption in absence of memorization. This oral

transmission is still present until now and there are millions of Muslims who memorize the

Quran as first recited by the Prophet (peace be upon him).

This is a fatal objection against Shamouns argument because transmission of the

Quran in both oral and written is identical, thus excludes any charge of tampering.

Another noteworthy point is that Al-Baidawi affirmed

the prophecy of Roman victory over Persians in his commentary, page 534, and said it is among

signs of his truthfulness. So, how come he is quoted to say the opposite?! Is it a widespread

practice among Christian missionaries?

The original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna,

"they shall defeat," COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN RENDERED, with the change of two

vowels, Sayughlabuna, "THEY (i.e. Romans) SHALL BE DEFEATED." Since vowel points

were not added until some time after this event, it could have been quite possible for a

scribe to deliberately tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement.

This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi ...

THIS BEING THE CASE, a Muslim cannot confidently tell us what the true reading

of the text is and hence cannot insure us THAT THIS VERSE ORIGINALLY PREDICTED THE

BYZANTINE VICTORY OVER THE PERSIANS

. Yet either rendering leaves us with a false

prophecy within the Quran.

Concerning the last comment about Muslims unable

to be confident about the accurate recitation, conditions were formulated by the scholars of the

Qur'anic recitation to facilitate critical analysis of the recitations. For any given recitation to be

accepted as authentic (Sahih), it had to fulfill three conditions and if any of the conditions were

missing such a recitation was classified as Shdhdh (unusual).

The first condition was that the recitation has an authentic chain of narration in

which the chain of narrators was continuous, the narrators were all known to be righteous

and they were all known to possess good memories. It was also required that the recitation

be conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of the chain of narration below

the level of Sahaabah (the condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic chains

but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted as explanations (Tafseer) of the

Sahaabah but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur'an. As for the narrations

which did not even have an authentic chain of narration, they were classified as Baatil

(false) and rejected totally.

The second condition was that the variations in recitations match known Arabic

grammatical constructions. Unusual constructions could be verified by their existence in

passages of pre-Islamic prose or poetry.

The third condition required the recitation to coincide with the script of one of the

copies of the Qur'an distributed during the era of Caliph Uthmn. Hence differences

which result from dot placement (i.e., ta'lamoon and ya'lamoon) are considered acceptable

provided the other conditions are met. A recitation of a construction for which no

evidence could be found would be classified Shaadhdh. This classification did not mean

that all aspects of the recitation was considered Shaadhdh. it only meant that the

unverified constructions were considered Shaadhdh.(1)

This being the case, we can confidently say that the authentic recitation is the one

universally accepted by all Muslim scholars and in perfect harmony with authentic Islamic

traditions.

Some Sunni Reports on the Incompleteness of Quran

There are some traditions in Sihah Sittah (six authentic Sunni collections) which are

not accepted by Shia scholars. Among them, some are talking about the changes made in

Quran * after * the death of the Prophet. As I will show, in some Sunnis report 345

verses, two chapters of Quran (one of which is was as much as ch.9 in length) are missing

from Quran

. Here I give you some references in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and

other important collections which falsely allege that Quran is incomplete

(source; bold and capital emphasis

ours)

============

Sahih Muslim

============

Muslim in the Seventh (7th part of his Sahih, in the book of Al Zakat about the virtue

of being satisfied with what ever God gives about urging people to have that virtue, pp

139-140 (Arabic), reported that Abu al-Aswad reported that his father said:

(For English version of Sahih Muslim see)*

(Chapter CCCXCI, p500, Tradition #2286)

Abu Musa al-Ashari invited the Quran readers of Basra. Three hundred (300) readers

responded to his invitation. He told them

You are the readers and the choice of the People of Basra. Recite the Quran and don't

neglect it. Other wise a long time may elapse and your hearts will be hardened as the

hearts of those who came before you were hardened.

We used to read a Chapter from the Quran similar to Bara'ah in length and seriousness,

but I forgot it. I can remember from the Chapter only the following words: Should a son of

Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should seek a third valley and nothing would fill

Ibn Adam's abdomen but the soil.

We also used to read a chapter similar to the Musabbihat and I forgot it. I only

remember out of it the following:

"Oh you who believe, why do you say what you do not do? (which is in another place

in Quran 61:2) Thus a testimony shall be written on your necks and you will be questioned

about it on the day of judgment." (which is a little different than what is in

another place in Quran 17:13)

It is obvious that the above underlined words which Abu Musa mentioned are not from

the Quran nor are they similar to any of the Words of God in the Quran

. It is

amazing that Abu Musa claims that two (2) chapters from the Quran are missing, one of them

is similar to Baraah in length!!

! (bold emphasis ours)

Umar [reportedly] Said Chapter 33 Is Incomplete:

al-Muttaqi Ali Ibn Husam al-Din in his book (Mukhtasar Kanz al-Ummal, printed on the

margin of Imam Ahmed's Musnad, v2, p2) in his Hadith about chapter 33, that said Ibn

Mardawayh reported that Huthaifah said:

Umar said to me: How many verses are contained in the Chapter al-Ahzab? I said 72

(seventy two) or 73 (seventy three) verses. He said: It was almost as long as the

chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 (two eighty seven) verses, and in it there was the

verse of stoning

.

If we take the report of Ibn Mardawayh which Huthaifah attributed to Umar in which he

said that the Chapter of al-Ahzab, which contained 72 (Seventy two) verses, was as long as

the Chapter of the Cow (containing 287) and take the report of Abu Musa which says that a

chapter equal in length to the Chapter of Bara'ah (contains 130) was deleted from the

Quran, then the deletion in the Quran according to these reports would be 345 Verses.

(bold emphasis ours)

-------

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.105:

-------

Narrated Alqama:

I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, "O Allah! Bless me

with a (pious) companion." Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came

near I said, (to myself), "I hope Allah has given me my request." The man asked

(me), "Where are you from?" I replied, "I am from the people of Kufa."

He said, "Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and

the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's

Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the

(Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin

Mas'ud) use to recite Surat al-Layl (The Night; ch. 92)?" I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male

and female." (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, "By Allah, the Prophet made me

read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) tried their

best to let me say something different."

-------------------------------------------

Comments:

Please read the Verse itself. It is By Him Who created male and the female.' (92:3)

Do you see the word "Him who created" in that aayah?

If no, please verify the Quran that you have.

If yes, please tell us that these words are added to Quran or not?

As you see, what is written in the parentheses is missing in the Hadith while it is in

the Quran.

Do you think that the aayah is abrogated? If yes, please define the word

"abrogation " for us.

{Abrogation is to delete something from Quran by the order of the prophet himself. For

example, there is a rule for a while, then the prophet brings God's order that the rule is

extended and the previous rule is not acceptable any more. Therefore, the previous rule is

abrogated. Now, do you think that "Him who created" is abrogated? If yes, tell

us what you understand from abrogation. Since these words are added, there is no room for

abrogation here. If something were deleted, you could say that. Here, nothing is deleted

from the present Quran. Something is added already based on these traditions.}

Do you think that these words were explanatory words?

Your answer: Yes, they were:

Please tell us if the narrators of these traditions knew what is aayah and what is

explanatory (commentary) statement?

These narrators say that the people of their time did not recite their way, however,

THEY WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING, and THEY WILL CONTINUE RECITING QURAN THAT WAY.

In addition, the commentary statements is not inside the Quran itself. It is in tafsir.

However, present Quran contains these words "him who created" inside them. Now,

please tell us that the present Quran contains the commentary words of Sahabah or not?

(Source: this link)

Hashim Ibn al-Qasim informed us; (he said): al-Mas'udi informed us on the authority of

Qasim, i.e., 'Abd al-Rahman; he said: Gabriel used to descend before the Apostle of Allah,

may Allah bless him, and he recited the Qur'an before him once every year [P. 4] in

Ramadan, till the year when the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, died; when

Gabriel made him recite the Qur'an twice. Abd Allah said: I recited the Qur'an

as I have it from the mouth of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, that year

.

If I had known any one more well versed... in the Book of Allah than me and camels had

borne me to him, surely I would have gone to him; but by Allah! I DO NOT KNOW ANY SUCH

PERSON

. (Ibid., p. 244)

Yahya Ibn Khulayf Ibn Uqbah al-Basri informed us; (second chain) Abd al-Wahhab

Ibn Ata informed us; he said: Ibn Awn informed us on the authority of Muhammad

ibn Sirin; he said: Gabriel used to recite the Qur'an before our Prophet, may Allah

bless him, once every year in Ramadan. In the year in which he breathed his last he

recited it twice before him. Muhammad said: I hope our style of reading... conforms to

the last recitation by Gabriel

. (Ibid., p. 243)

Abu Muawiyah al-Darir informed us; (he said): al-Amash informed us on the

authority of Abu Zabyan, he on the authority of Ibn Abbas, he asked: Which of the

two readings (of the Qur'an) do you prefer? He (Abu Zabyan) said: We replied:

The reading of Abd Allah

. Thereupon he said: Verily the Qur'an was

recited (by Gabriel) before the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, once in every

Ramadan, except the year in which he breathed his last, when it was recited twice. Then

Abd Allah Ibn Masud came to him (Prophet) and he learnt what was abrogated or

altered

.

Yahya Ibn isaal-Ramli informed us on authority of Sufyan, he on the authority of

al-Amash, he on the authority of Abu al-Duha, he on the authority of Masruq; he

said: Abd Allah said: No surah was revealed but I know about what it was

revealed

. If I had known any one knowing more of the Book of Allah than me, and if the

camels or other riding beasts had carried me there, I must have gone to him...

Wahb Ibn Jarir Ibn Hazm informed us: (he said): Shubah informed us on the authority

of Ibrahim Ibn Muhajir, he on the authority of Ibrahim, he on the authority of Abd

Allah; (second chain) Abu Nuaym al-Fadl Ibn Dukayn informed us; (he said): Abu

al-Ahwas informed us on the authority of Said Ibn Masruq, he on the authority of Abu

al-Duha, he on the authority of Abd Allah; he said: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah

bless him, said to me: Recite (the Qur'an) before me. Thereupon I said: How can I

repeat before you and it has been revealed on you. He said: I like it. Wahb said in

his version: I desire to hear it from others. He (Abd Allah) said: I recited the surah

of al-Nisa before him, till I reached the verse: But how (will it be with them)

when We bring of every people and We bring thee (O Muhammad) a witness against them. Abu

Nuaym said in his version: Thereupon he said: It is enough. Both of them said: Then

I saw him that the eyes of the Prophet, may Allah bless him, were filled tears, and he

said: Whoever seeks pleasure in reciting the Qur'an according to its fresh reading

he should recite after the reading of Ibn Umm 'Abd

. (Ibid., pp. 441-442)

Waki Ibn al-al-Jarrah informed us on the authority of Ismail Ibn Khalid, he on

the authority of Abu Amr al-Shaybani; he said: Abu Musa al-Ashari said: Do not

put questions to me as long as this learned man, that is Ibn Masud, is among you.

(Ibid., p. 443)

Maan Ibn Isa informed us; (he said): Muawiyah Ibn Salih informed us on

the authority of Asad Ibn Wada'ah: Verily Umar mentioned Ibn Masud and said:

(He is) a box full of knowledge for which I honoured the people of al-Qadisiyah

. (Ibid., p. 444)

Narrated Masriq:

Abdullah bin Amr mentioned Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I

shall ever love that man

, for I heard the Prophet saying, Take (learn) the

Quran from four

: Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Muadh and Ubai

bin Ka'b." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521)

Narrated Abdullah (bin Masud):

By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed

in Allahs Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no

Verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed. (Sahih

Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 524)

Ibn Masud was considered one of the most knowledgeable Muslims.

Ibn Masud recited the Quran before Muhammad after the latter had recited the Quran

twice in the presence of Gabriel.

Ibn Masud personally learned from Muhammad all the abrogated and altered Quranic

verses.

Ibn Masud claimed to know the reasons for the revelation of each surah.

Ibn Masud claimed that he knew of no one that was better versed in the Quran than he.

Muhammad told people to follow Ibn Masuds reading of the Quran.

Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:

Once Abdullah bin Masud delivered a sermon before us and said, "By

Allah, I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah's Apostle. By Allah, the companions

of the Prophet came to know that I am one of those who know Allah's Book best of all of

them, yet I am not the best of them." Shaqiq added: I sat in his religious gathering

and I did not hear anybody opposing him (in his speech). (Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book

61, Number 522)

Affan ibn Muslim informed us on the authority of Anas ibn Malik, he on the

authority of the Prophet, may Allah bless him; he said: The best reader (of the Qur'an)

among my people is Ubayy ibn Kab

. (Ibn Sad, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir,

Volume 2, p. 441)

"Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient books that Ibn

Masud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the Mu'awwithatayni are part of

the Quran are embarrassing in their implications

But the Qadi Abu Bakr

said "It is not soundly reported from him that they are not part of the Quran

and there is no record of such a statement from him. He omitted them from his

manuscript as he did not approve of their being written.

This does not mean he denied

they were part of the Quran. In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be

inscribed in the text (mushaf) unless so commanded by the Prophet (saw) and

he had not heard that it had been so commanded". (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum

al-Qur'an

, p.186)

" Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani however, in his commentary on the Sahih of

al-Bukhari (his famous Fath al-Baari), accepted these reports as sound,

quoting authorities who stated that Ibn Masud would not include the two

charm surahs in his manuscript as Muhammad had, to his knowledge, only

commanded that they be used as incantations against evil forces

. He regarded the isnad

(the chain of transmitters) for this record as totally sound and attempted to harmonise

the conflicting records instead, suggesting that Ibn Masud accepted the Fatiha

and charm surahs as genuinely revealed but was reluctant to inscribe them in

his written text." (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an: The Codification of the Qur'an

Text,

, p. 68; bold emphasis ours)

Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:

I asked Ubai bin Kab, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn Masud

said so-and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidh-at do not belong to the Quran)

."

Ubai said, "I asked Allahs Apostle about them, and he said, They have

been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as a part of the Quran)," So Ubai

added, "So we say as Allahs Apostle has said." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume

6, Book 60, Number 501)

"Written in the text of Ubayy ibn Kab were the Fatihal-kitab

(the Opening Surah) and the Mu'awwi-thatayni (the Charm Surahs) and Allahumma

innaa nasta'iinka

(the opening words of Suratul-Khal meaning 'O Allah, we

seek your help') and Allahumma ayyaaka na'budu (the opening words of Suratul-Hafd

meaning O Allah, we worship you)". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum

al-Qur'an

by Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti, p.153)

Also al-Hakim An-Nisaboori in his book "Al-Mustadrak" in the section of

commentary on the Quran, part two, p224, reported that Ubai Ibn Kaab (whom the Prophet

called the leader of al-ansar), said that the Messenger of God said to him:

Certainly the Almighty commanded me to read the Quran in front of you, and he read

"The unbelievers from the people of the Book and the pagans will not change their way

until they see the evidence. Those who disbelieve among the people of the scripture and

the idolaters could not change until the clear proof came unto them. A Messenger from

Allah, reading purified pages" And of the very excellent part of it:

"Should Ibn Adam ask for a valley full of wealth and I grant it to him, he would

ask for another valley. And if I grant him that, he would ask for a third valley. Nothing

would fill the abdomen of Ibn Adam except the soil. God accepts the repentance of anyone

who repents. The religion in the eyes of God is the Hanafiyah (Islam) rather than

Yahudiyya (Judaism) or Nasraniya (Christianity). Whoever does good, his goodness will not

be denied."

Sunni reference: al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim, section of commentary on the Quran, v2, p224

Al-Hakim wrote: This is an authentic Hadith. al-Dhahabi also considered it

authentic in his commentary (on al-Mustadrak).

al-Hakim reported that Obei Ibn Kabb

used to read:

"Those who disbelieved had set up in their hearts the zealotry of the age of

ignorance; and if you had had a similar zealotry, the Sacred Mosque would have been

corrupted, and God [would have] brought down His peace of reassurance upon His

Messenger"

When al-Hakim said this is authentic according to the standards of the two sheikhs

(Al-Bukhari and Muslim)!!! and when al-Dhahabi also considered it authentic in his

Commentary on al-Mustadrak, v2, pp 225-226, and when Muslim report similar to this from

Abu Musa Ash'ari which I mentioned earlier, then what will be the conclusion? (bold

emphasis ours)

"And We have bestowed upon thee the Seven

Oft-Repeated (verses) AND the Grand Quran

." S. 15:87

Maliks Muwatta Book 3, Number 3.9.39:

Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Ala ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Yaqub that Abu Said, the

mawla of Amir ibn Kuraz told him that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and

grant him peace, called toUbayy ibn Kab while he was praying. When Ubayy had finished his

prayer he joined the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the

Messenger of Allah put his hand upon his hand, and he was intending to leave by the door

of the mosque, so the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said,

"I hope that you will not leave the mosque until you know a sura whose like Allah

has not sent down in the Tawrah nor in the Injil NOR IN THE QURAN

." Ubayy

said, "I began to slow down my pace in the hope of that. Then I said, Messenger

of Allah, the sura you promised me! He said, What do you recite when you begin

the prayer? I recited the Fatiha (Sura 1) until I came to the end of it, and the

Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, It is this

sura, and it is the "seven oft-repeated" and the Great Qur'an which I was given

."

(source.)

Narrated Uthman ibn Affan:

Yazid al-Farisi said: I heard Ibn Abbas say: I asked Uthman ibn Affan: What moved

you to put the (Surah) al-Baraah which belongs to the miin (surahs)

(containing one hundred verses) and the (Surah) al-Anfal which belongs to the mathani

(Surahs) in the category of as-sabu at-tiwal (the first long surah or

chapters of the Quran), and you did not write "In the name of Allah, the

Compassionate, the Merciful" between them?

Uthman replied: When the verses of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet

(peace_be_upon_him), he called someone to write them down for him and said to him: Put

this verse in the surah in which such and such has been mentioned; and when one or two

verses were revealed, he used to say similarly (regarding them). (Surah) al-Anfal is the

first surah that was revealed at Medina, and (Surah) al-Baraah was revealed last in

the Qur'an, and its contents were similar to those of al-Anfal. I, therefore, thought

that it was a part of al-Anfal.

Hence I put them in the category of as-sabu

at-tiwal (the seven lengthy surahs), and I did not write "In the name of Allah, the

Compassionate, the Merciful" between them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 3, Number 0785)

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:

While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked,

"What type of shroud is the best?" Aisha said, "May Allah be merciful

to you! What does it matter?" He said, "O mother of the Believers! Show me (the

copy of) your Quran," She said, "Why?" He said, "In order to

compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not

in proper order

." Aisha said, "What does it matter which part of it

you read first? (Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura

from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced

Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to

be revealed was: Do not drink alcoholic drinks. People would have said,

We will never leave alcoholic drinks, and if there had been revealed, Do

not commit illegal sexual intercourse, they would have said, We will never

give up illegal sexual intercourse. While I was a young girl of playing age, the

following Verse was revealed in Mecca to Muhammad: Nay! But the Hour is their

appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more

bitter. (54.46) Sura Al-Baqara (The Cow) and Surat An-Nisa (The Women) were revealed

while I was with him." Then Aisha took out the copy of the Quran for the

man and dictated to him the Verses of the Suras (in their proper order). (Sahih

Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 515)

Before moving on Id like to make a little comment on Pfander,

a 19th century leader of the Christian missionaries to India while it was under the occupation of the

British, who is quoted by Mr. Shamoun not realizing that during his lifetime his book was

refuted in detail by a number of Muslim scholars such as Al-Kairanvi Al-Hindi in his book "Izhar

ul Haqq" which has been translated into English and is widely available

today.

Pfander was invited to a five day public debate in Calcutta India with Al-Kairanvi which

has been preserved for posterity in the Indian archives. The debate was originally

scheduled to continue for five days and to discuss five different topics (tampering,

abrogation, the Trinity, the origins of the Qur'an, and the prophethood of Muhammad, peace

be upon him). However, after only two days, the day the issue of the Trinity was to be

discussed, Pfander withdrew from this public debate refusing to continue. Al-Kairanvi was

subsequently so severely persecuted by the occupying British forces that he was forced to

flee the country. This is how such men managed to 'prove' their case and these are the

sorts of men whom people regard as champions of Islam bashing and quoted by many authors.

Mr. Shamoun wrote

It amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the victory,

seeing that God is all-knowing and all-wise, declaring the end from the beginning. When

God specifies a time frame as an important part of a prophecy we would expect that it be

precise, not a mere guess. For God to guess that the Byzantines would win at some time

within "a few years" as opposed to specifying the exact year, is inconsistent

with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it is unlikely that the true

God would actually make such a prophecy.

There is no single biblical prophecy that speaks of any time range, let alone a

specific date. Does this mean that they are inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient,

Omnipotent Being?

This desperate polemic does not even deserve an answer. But saying that the Roman victory

was to come within 3-9 years is very effective against any unnecessary rhetoric because

some people follow the lunar calendar and some follow the solar calendar. Also, people

have different ways of calculation and approximation, e.g. 3 years and 6 months are

considered as 3 years by some and as 4 years by some.

It amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the victory,

seeing that God is all-knowing and all-wise, declaring the end from the beginning. WHEN

GOD SPECIFIES A TIME FRAME AS AN IMPORTANT PART OF PROPHECY WE WOULD EXPECT THAT IT BE

PRECISE, NOT A MERE GUESS

. FOR GOD TO GUESS THAT THE BYZANTINES WOULD WIN AT SOME

TIME WITHIN "A FEW YEARS" AS OPPOSED TO SPECIFYING THE EXACT YEAR

, is

inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it is unlikely

that the true God would actually make such a prophecy.

But saying that the Roman victory was to come within 3-9 years is very effective

against any unnecessary rhetoric because some people follow the lunar calendar and some

follow the solar calendar. Also, people have different ways of calculation and

approximation, e.g. 3 years and 6 months are considered as 3 years by some and as 4 years

by some.

He [Ibn Abbas] said, "They were defeated and then they were victorious." He

said, "The idolators wanted the Persians to prevail over the Romans, because they

were idol worshipers, and the Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians,

because they were People of the Book. This was mentioned to Abu Bakr who mentioned it to

the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah said

((They will prevail.))

Abu Bakr mentioned this to the idolators, and they said, "Set a time limit for

that, and if we prevail, we will get such and such; and if you prevail, you will get such

and such." So he set A LIMIT OF FIVE YEARS, AND THEY (THE ROMANS) DID NOT PREVAIL.

Abu Bakr mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah and he said...

((Why did you not make it less than))

[I (the narrator) think he meant less than ten]. Said bin Jubayr said: "Bid

means less than ten." Then the Romans were victorious

Abu Isa At-Tirmidhi recorded that Niyar bin Mukram Al-Aslami said: "When the

following Ayat were revealed

<Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land, and they,

after their defeat, will be victorious. In Bid years.>

on the day they were revealed, the Persians were prevailing over the Romans. The

Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over them (the Persians), because they were both

people who followed a Book. Concerning this Allah said

<And on that day, the believers will rejoice- with the help of Allah. He helps

whom he wills, and He is the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful.>

The Quraysh, on the other hand, wanted the Persians to prevail, neither of them

were people who followed a Book and neither of them believed in the Resurrection. When

Allah revealed these Ayat, Abu Bakr went out proclaiming throughout Makkah

< Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land, and they,

after their defeat, will be victorious. In Bid years.>

Some of the Quraysh said to Abu Bakr: This is (a bet) between us and you.

Your companion claims that the Romans will defeat the Persians within three to nine

years

, so why not have a bet between us and you? Abu Bakr said, Yes.

This was before betting had been forbidden. So, Abu Bakr and the idolators made a bet, and

they said to Abu Bakr: What do you think, Bid means something between

three and nine years. So let us agree on the middle. So they agreed on six years. Then

six years passed without the Romans being victorious, so the idolators took what had bet

with Abu Bakr

. When the seventh year came and the Romans were finally victorious over

the Persians, the Muslims REBUKED Abu Bakr for agreeing on six years. He said:

BECAUSE ALLAH SAID: "In Bid years." At that time

many people became Muslims." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 7 Surat An-Nur

to Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 50

, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of

Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh,

Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition August 2000], pp. 518-520; bold and

capital emphasis ours)

Mr. Shamoun wrote

Interestingly, the phrase "a few years" serves to further discredit this

alleged prophecy. Abu Bakr believed the term "a few years" meant that the

Byzantines were going to win in three years:

"This passage refers to the defeat of the

Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 - 6 years before the

Hegira). However, the defeat of the Persians should take place soon 'in a small number of

years'. In the light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf

that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years, but he was corrected by

Mohammed who stated that the 'small number' is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi).

Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact,

however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi commentary). That

was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed. Consequently this passage does not

qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between prophecy and fulfilment was far

too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable." (Gerhard Nehls,

Christians Ask Muslims [Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992], pp. 70-71)

Al-Baidawis commentary states that the prophecy was fulfilled exactly as the

Quran predicted (page 534) and added "This is one of sign of prophethood

because it is a prophecy". This flaw committed by Shamoun and his quoted authors

is called misquoting authorities. Moreover, history records that Romans

defeated the Persians in 622 A.D. and Islamic traditions confirm this historical fact.

In the end of this section, we observe that Shamouns

approach toward this particular prophecy is characterized with much wiggling, squirming and excessive

misquoting of authorities. If Mr. Shamoun believed he had a good case, he would never

resort to such techniques. Many charges were directed from Muslims fabricating prophecy to

the event being easily predictable. This indicates that their argument is merely based on

guesswork of "how this prophecy can be false".

"When the seventh year came and the Romans were finally victorious over the

Persians ..."

"That was a great day for the Christians. Chosroes and his army remained in a

state of confusion, not knowing what they were doing. They had not been able to conquer

the land of Caesar, and their own land was devastated by the Romans, who seized their

wealth, and captured their women and children

. This was how the Romans defeated the

Persians, and this happened NINE YEARS after the Persians defeated the Romans

.

This conflict between the Persians and the Romans continued until the Romans prevailed

between Adhruat (Ash-Sham) and Busra, according to what was stated by Ibn

Abbas, Ikrimah and others. This is a place on the edge of Ash-Sham, along the

border with Al-Hijaz. Mujahid said, That was a place in the Arabian Peninsula which

is closer to the land of the Romans than to Persia. And Allah knows best. (Ibid., p.

524; bold emphasis ours)

"... The title of "On the Roman Conquest of Persia" is deceptive ..."

"... Heraclius again invaded Persia and in December 627, after a march

across the Armenian highlands into the Tigris plain, met the Persians near the ruins of

Nineveh. There, astride his renowned war-horse, he killed three Persian generals in single

combat, charged into enemy ranks at the head of his troops, killed the Persian commander,

and scattered the Persian host.

A month later, Heraclius entered Dastagird with its stupendous treasure ..."

"... Constantinople held, and Shahin was defeated: the Persian second force was

outmanoevred in 628 by Heraclius brave dash to Dastagird, the royal

residence 70 miles (113 kilometres) north of Ctesiphon

. An important but indecisive

battle was fought near Nineveh, but, as the Byzantine army reapproached Dastagird,

Khosrow fled

..."