The Quran – Sciences 61 – Naskh Supersession Purity Of Creed

AsSalamu Alaikum and welcome to Islam focus

today's program is a 61st in the series sources of Islam and we have the third segment in our topic on aggregation I'm your host reshot Manish and with me from St. Mary's University is Reza Jamal dito.

Dr. Roger, well, we started quite a complicated topic at that and something that many, many people are not familiar with. And maybe we could start off with a summary of our previous program. Okay. After we talked about the various classification of what is known as abrogation, or an Arabic naskh, or, as they call this superstition that one verse supersede the other by way of gradual implementation of the law. We indicated that by further verification, the only type of the three that we discussed that is really relevant is a verse which has been in the Quran, which has been superseded by another verse, also in the Quran, so both of them are already in the text. And both

one of them superseded the others, or came in as a second or more advanced stage in the evolution or development of Islamic law.

And we indicated that if you really examine these types of verses, or quote unquote abrogation or supersession,

you find that most of them really were not abrogation as some people might have thought of, but rather complement a large segment of them are nothing but a compliment. We gave a number of examples of that, for example, the verses that deal with voluntary donations, or charity, which some people mistakenly thought that these verses were abrogated by verses which required the minimum required Zakat are charity, and that there is no conflict between both because there is a minimum that you have to pay, but you still are urged to donate or to have more charity. Similarly, the verses that dealt with the rise of the widow,

that you can stay in the household of her husband, for example, for years, but that's different from the waiting period for remarriage. So we try to see that this are not really

abrogation even in the technical sense. We also describe some other extreme, where some scholars being too sensitive about the term abrogation or the

thinking mistakenly that masks may carry, the implication that God, quote unquote, changed his mind, which of course, is inappropriate for divinity. So some of them went too far, in trying to reject the notion of abrogation. Others tried to explain differently by saying that this is stasis or specifying the rules, which we indicated also, again, that this is not always the case. There are other cases where there's definitely some kind of superstition.

Among this

instances of acceptable cases of abrogation, we describe the case of the prohibition of intoxicants of drinking and the various stages went through. And then we concluded that if one really is careful about

verses that are simply complements rather than abrogated, or superseded in the Quran,

we find that they might come to nearly 21 or even 19 verses, according to generality, Massoud calculation or study. And some scholars like Dr. Salah haven say that if you check even on this further, it probably would be no more than about 10 verses where there's sometimes some kind of superstition. And

generally, generally speaking, what college students abrogated versus deal with? Well, I'm glad that this question came up because I think it's

it's very essential to notice that there has been no abrogation whatsoever, or superstition in matters of belief, fundamental beliefs about the Unity or unique oneness, oneness and uniqueness of the Creator. This is a matter that there could be no tolerance to any

deviation or gradualness. Because the matter of belief is something that does not require much gradualness it's either you believe it or you don't

That's different from habits like drinking.

And if you examine the various topics, you find that some of them relate to some specific details aspects of worship, like the example we gave before of the changing of the direction of the prayer, for example, from Jerusalem in the early stages to the Kaaba after it was

cleansed from the

idol worship.

We discuss, for example, in certain aspects pertaining to fasting,

or some aspects pertaining to the law of inheritance, and succession, and Islam. But in all of these cases,

there is none. Really that has anything to do with matters of belief, unless there's misunderstanding or misinterpretation. I see now, and the answer you just given to my previous question, you made it quite clear that none of these quote unquote abrogated versus

the fundamental beliefs in Islam. But some Orientals do claim, however, that there were verses in earlier revelations, which create, for example, goddesses then that these verses were subsequently abrogated. Now, before we go into this, what is the basis of these of these claims? Okay, this

in the writing of some orientalist, like Montgomery watts, Danielle and Gardner.

They claim that in Surah, number 53. So imagine

that there were a few verses that were thrown on the mouth of the prophet or in the tongue of the Prophet by Satan, some of them use an appropriate term besides the refer to them as the Satanic Verses that they set in mid the Prophet

you know, enunciate or say these verses, and they say, or claim that this were the verses that are now replaced, quote, unquote, with verses 19 through 23. That's instead of 53.

Again, and our

style always in this program, that even if something is extremely wrong, we try first to explain what it is and what evidence was given and then analyze it.

The claim is made that the conditional or earlier verses was not really a revelation, but rather earlier verses that it is said that the Satan made the Prophet say them.

Praise some of the goddesses that the pagan Arabs worshipped. And they say that originally thread a for item 11. On an episode Lisa takakura, tilt camera, Nicola

Sturgeon, which means Have you seen the lead, Rosa and manette, the other the third, which are all names of goddesses worshipped by Arabs,

and then the claim is made that the original red or the Satanic Verses were, these are the exhausted ones, and their intercession is to be hoped for.

And some of the stories even goes on and on and described how when Satan through this verses on the flank of the Prophet, how are people around the Prophet

frustrated, the Muslim priestesses in an in worship of God and the idol worshippers frustrated because they thought that the Prophet has made some kind of concession to the to their goddesses.

The evidences that are presented for this is that first of all, some Korean studies say that these are reports that has already existed. And they say that even one interpreters. One interpreter, unlike Alpine Valley, even mentioned that story or say that there has been a report to that effect.

Secondly, we find that watts Montgomery watts to support his claim, indicate that this so called claimed abrogated verses must have been read in public. And he says that,

how could we imagine that this story or report is all fabricated? Again, I'm just trying to present what the argument in support of that claim.

Okay, well, now that you've presented what the argument is, why don't you take it one step further and evaluate the disposition of these Orientals? Okay, well, first of all, in order to evaluate any allegation or reports for that message,

a number of questions must be answered. First of all,

what is the nature of these reports?

Secondly, how authentic are these reports from the historical standpoint?

Thirdly, analytically speaking, by way of external evidence analytically, how do these reports fit within the style of the context of the Quran in general, and the context of that sutra or chapter in which it is claimed that it might have occurred at one time or the other.

As to the first question, the nature of these reports, we find that they are lacking in consistency.

Some report said that the Prophet recited that in the presence of Muslims, and pagans

in another version would say that this was done one when he was in the prayers.

One story say that the Satan made this verses flow on his tank, or throw it on his tongue.

In another version, it says that the Prophet at one time hope

that the Quran may compromise or revelation would come to him, somehow to give some concession to those unbelievers so that at least in the initial stage, they might not, you know, run away from the truth of Islam, but graduated, we could change. And then the claim is made that the angel of Revelation, Gabrielle later on came to him to collect them and say that you should not hope for these kinds of things.

Now, I'm just talking about the the nature of the reports. But the more important question is how authentic this approach and throughout these programs, we have always put everything to me. So one cannot just accept the report, because there is some reference that say that this happened.

The mere fact that this report

does not mean that it has any basis, it's quite, it's quite possible that the report itself is a fabrication.

Now, the statements made by Montgomery was that it is unreasonable to think that this report is a fabricated report seems to overlook the fact that it is one not too many historians. What What is one of them, that in later times, there have been lots of fabrication, and many things that were even attributed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, what he didn't say, are things that actually never happened, because of the division that took place in this time and the various ideas and people have tried to interpret the Quran to serve certain purposes rather than to sincerely understand it, and that it is well known historically. And they wonder how that could have escaped

the mind of such a scholar like what the very reason why, in Islamic tradition, there was the growth, emergence and growth of the whole science or sciences, in fact, of Hadith or the saying of the Prophet and verification of what you said, which was pioneered by Bukhari and Muslim who went through, spent their entire life going through the various things attributed to the prophet in words and deeds and tried to verify that to sift through and to trace the trustworthiness of the report and reporters.

matter which like I said, it's a big topic in itself and perhaps we hope to be able to touch a little bit on that, but this sciences of verification In fact, came as a result of the existence of fabrication. So how could we say that fabrication is unreasonable to assume even though it is documented Historically,

the thing that is quite interesting also, when you evaluate this reports from the critical historical standpoint,

you find that surprisingly,

there is not report like that appears in the most reliable and trustworthy sources of hobbyists, for example, by Bukhari and Muslim, the two pioneers of the verification of what was attributed to the Prophet.

And surprisingly, also as early as the middle of the second century of hedger.

The famous historian and biographer of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in his hack, which was regarded by both Muslim and non Muslim scholars as the foremost and earliest authority on the life of the Prophet

was able to trace that story. And he concluded that it was fabricated by a group of people known as, as den adakah as another common source who did not really believe in Islam, yet, they claimed some kind of nominal

relationship with Islam or claimed to be Muslims.

And

many other researchers have confirmed the same thing and I thought, for example, about the Sierra or the history of the Prophet Muhammad

As Ellie, and many others came up with the same conclusion as eveness hack, that if you really trace the story, you find that it actually came through

as an attacker. Initially, they tried to spread that. The problem indeed is that some of the Muslim writers, even like Alba, we, for example, in his interpretation, has mentioned these reports, without necessarily examining their historicity. I'm not saying that they were not aware that these stories were unauthentic. But it is quite possible, as we indicated in the previous program, that some of those writers, perhaps assumed too much. Maybe in their time, most people were aware of the techniques and methodology as to how to evaluate the authenticity of various reports. And the knowledge of many readers of the people who are involved in the narration of those stories should

actually say, oh, that person cannot be trusted, or other reasons why we can evaluate the story. Maybe they should have not assumed that much, because later readers would take the media, the very fact that they have conveyed that report, or narrated it, and give it some

exact sound, some false authenticity, which probably they didn't mean themselves, even to imply that there's authenticity to that.

Now that that makes it clear, and that the evidence presented seems very well sufficient to negate this story, historically speaking.

I'm curious whether as what you met with an earlier statement, that analytically speaking, the story does not fit now, exactly what the

by that we mean, that as we did some basic approach and different programs,

you could argue authenticity of reports, back and forth. And I hope that at least there is enough evidence that this story is not really to be trusted.

But normally, we used also to raise issues and questions pertaining to the external evidence, the viability of the story, does the story seem to fit really, the structure of Islam, the content of the Quran, the aim, even of the surah. And I think the while, as you said, perhaps the historical evidence could suffice, it says, I see some value also this external evidence or additional analytical point that might clarify the issue further, maybe I should get specifically into what I mean by that. Now, if we examine that story, or that support, which is unauthentic, historically, even within the context of the Quran, as a whole, we find that it doesn't really fit throughout the

entire core. And there are dozens and dozens of verses.

Not only saying that there is one God but rejecting any notion of anyone sharing any of the divine attributes with God, whether that thing is angels, persons, humans, creation, stars, whatever. The Quran is very, very strict on that from the very beginning.

Secondly,

some orientalist like what and others

wanted to take that report to cast some doubt about the purity of Islamic monotheism and how immaculate it is, and somehow to imply falsely that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him at one time. So that was his Prophetic Mission was somewhat tolerant to other gods or goddesses or wherever, at any point of time. This effort is quite a few times. It is few times, first of all, because consistent reports, authoritative and authentic reports, indicates that from the very beginning of the revelation of the Quran to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. He never believed in any false gods. There are even reports that even before he was commissioned as a prophet, he never even

believed in those Gods before even the engine of revelation came to him.

In addition to this, there is an interesting point is that there were other chapters in the Quran are Suez, which were revealed, prior to this chapter 53, where the claim is made about this abrogated verses, which clearly and unequivocally rejects the idea of any

notion of gods or goddesses beside God or any male or female gods. As we find, for example, in chapter 112, in the Quran, which is one of the earliest revelation say, He is Allah, the one and only

the one on whom all depends, he begets not nor was, was he because and and there is none that is comparable, comparable, let alone believing in other gods who survived the complete absence of any corroborating evidence in the Quran. On the contrary, the consistent evidence throughout the entire for an is totally

in favor of the Immaculate monotheism.

The other thing also is that not only does that story seem to be awkward and does not fit the integrity and consistency of the Koran, it does not even fit the context of the short of that chapter.

That chapter

was

revealed.

After the ascension, the journey, my journey and ascension to heaven of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. And actually, if you read it, it says, it will lead Rosa, if you did attend the center, for item alert, or there was a woman at the 32nd chakra, Allah COVID de Carvalho tilka Empress maximum visa in here in this mountain to meet him or her and to whatever. Now, if you look at it in terms of the meaning of the flow, or the flow of meaning, and the verses before and after this claimed abrogated verses, you find that the meaning is completely consistent, and speaks about monotheism because it says, Have you seen let Isaiah and manette, the third, that's the the

goddesses, are you claiming that you are entitled to have the male children but God would have the female children, of course, addressing people in a society which used to help female in contempt and considered male superior? So the verse simply says that, if you people are saying that this, the angels are the daughters of Allah, or this goddesses exists, are you people who hold the female in contempt, claim that God has the daughters and new people have the children, the male children, and then it says,

this, indeed, is a very unfair division. These are nothing but names that you have made. You and your predecessors, you have no authority on that. In other words, it actually rejects any

notion of false gods or goddesses

and indicate the only authority is for the only sovereign God. The third element that I'd like to bring also, that even for those who do not understand the Arabic language, if you check even the style of this verses, you find that their aim is completely perfect. That's the in the Quran as it exists. the negation of any study like that seems to be quite evident in the aim of the reverse. But

like I said, if one looks at it, not only historically, but in terms of the additional evidence, you find that both of them cooperate to show that as Dr. halifa indicated in the court, the Supreme Court and he said the district must have been made, perhaps more so for amusement.

I think that this explanation provided is quite reasonable. I wonder, however, why somebody has claimed that this story is actually confirmed elsewhere in the crowd. Now, maybe you can start off by what the basis of that claim is, and what your response to it is.

Some of them refer to a verse that includes or contain the word mass, which some interpreted as one meaning of mass, as indicated in the previous program could mean application and they did mention that before and indicated that it has no relevance. So maybe I should at least indicate why what kind of damage there is and how can we respond to that? They refer to a verse in chapter 22, versus actually chapter 22, non

versus 52 and 53.

Which days in Arabic formats and none of us really well and opinion in the

town of

Pensacola, Houma, Utica, shaitan como la jolla de la de mon Hakeem

that in the rough translation of meaning, it says that we have not sent a message we have not sent any prophet or messenger before except when he hoped Amanda had come to that. When he hoped, Satan threw something in this hope. Then Allah removes what Satan throws and Allah establish firmly is science at Allah is most knowledgeable, most wise.

Now, the crucial word here is command that it means or it shows that there's some kinds of attempted interference on the part of Satan in the mission of prophets, but what does the word commandment means? Some people have mistakenly interpreted that to mean recite it or read

it which of course some people jumped on that and said look, you just confirmed because it says that Satan is throwing something when the Prophet recite that is

Beside the scriptures,

but Amanda actually means hoped for.

And as some earlier scholar indicated, that interpreted as recited is really going to find is putting a meaning into the word that doesn't come from hope. And anyone who knows Arabic come from Omnia are hoping. Now, what does that mean then is that whenever God says whenever we send a prophet,

and he hoped to guide humanity and people to goodness, we find that Satan establishes or throws something. And that's what that is by establishing or putting obstacles in his way, by whispering to the people, not to follow the Prophet, or listen to him. So he starts to stand away in that, and in the between the prophet and that hope, and then it says, then God removes those obstacles that no matter how much resistance to the truth is, is there, this evil forces and resistance to the teachings of the Prophet ultimately would have to be removed, and then God would establish his scripture or His revelation. One additional observation I should add to this is that the verse says,

We have not sent any profit, or any messenger. And as some scholars say, that sometimes when the word prophet and messenger is used, a messenger is one who receives revelation, a prophet need not necessarily receive it. So there's some argument terminologically about what it means. But in any case, if that's what this means, we know that some prophets did not receive revelation. So the rest could not just be referring to Revelation. They know the broader meaning that applies to every prophet or messenger, depending on their level or degree is the hope to guide humanity to the to the truth.

So from this

analysis, it is obvious then that people the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, really, it's somebody who just want to twist the verse and say no, that is supported as well against all evidence, overwhelming evidence that that we discussed, then perhaps he made the sorbets in terms of scrutiny of these studies. Of course there is no foundation for it.

Now

I'm sure there are incidents of this.

Now, I think we've only got about 3540 seconds left and maybe I'll stop my questioning over here because we probably won't have time to answer them. We thank all of you for joining us here in assignment focus, and hope to see all of you again next week inshallah, in time