Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Follower of Ahlulbayt

"Two ‘Lost’ Sūras of the Qurʾān" by Sean Anthony

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam,

Some of us may be aware that the codex of Ubayy b. K'ab had two extra surahs— Surah al-Khal' and Surah al-Hafd. Of course, this would mean that Ubayy thought that the Uthmanic codex we have today is missing two chapters. 

Now, before reading this article, I thought that it was only Ubayy who thought that these were actual surahs revealed as part of the Qur'an, boy was I wrong. 

For example, among the early Muslims who considered these prayers as two surahs were:

  1. Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī
  2. Ḥasan al-Baṣrī
  3. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib
  4. ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ
  5. Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī
  6. Ṭāriq b. Shihāb
  7. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al -Malik al-Anṣārī
  8. Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān
  9. Salama  b. Kuhayl
  10. ʿAzra b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Khuzāʿī
  11. Maymūn b. Mihrān
  12. Ḥammād b. Salama
  13. Muḥammad b. Isḥāq

What surprised even more was that even other companions of the Prophet besides Ubayy were attributed with the opinion that these prayers were two surahs such as:

  1. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
  2. Ibn ʿAbbās
  3. Abū Mūsā l- Ashʿarī
  4. ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd

and most surprisingly, Imam Ali (a) himself!

What do you guys think? Do you think that these two prayers could have possibly been two surahs that were left out in the Uthmanic codex? As the author mentions, there is pretty much no mention at all of these two prayers in our literature. Thoughts?

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
6 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

What do you guys think? 

You ca deduce an important concept from 

"The fourth reason for the difference which is more important than the three enumerated above is that many nations, out of those which participated in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and endorsed it, violated this declaration and started armed conflicts to nullify and destroy it, but wherever Ali placed his foot, and whenever he said anything, or unsheathed his sword, he did so to destroy tyranny and oppression and leveled the ground to march forward on the path of truth and justice. So much so that he met his martyrdom in defence of human rights, although during his lifetime he had already been martyred thousands of times."

https://www.al-Islam.org/voice-human-justice-sautul-adalatil-insaniyah-George-jordac/un-charter-human-rights

----------

As a layman, I think based on evidence (Resistance offered at Saqifa, Fadaq, Karbala historical battles of Jamal, Siffin) that The Qur'an, (Important concepts) that was left for us, is what we needed to have otherwise. There would not have been any other reason but the safe guard of the Book of Allah(عزّ وجلّ) as Allah(عزّ وجلّ) representatives on this Earth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

and most surprisingly, Imam Ali (a) himself!

What do you guys think? Do you think that these two prayers could have possibly been two surahs that were left out in the Uthmanic codex? As the author mentions, there is pretty much no mention at all of these two prayers in our literature. Thoughts?

Salam if Imam Ali (عليه السلام) approved this why other Imams didn't approve it , it's just another attack to Holy Qur'an from weak & unauthentic sources .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wisdom Needed

Salam,

Firstly, Sean Anthony is not a Muslim. All his works are 'academic' and inclined against normative Islamic beliefs. This is a common trend in academia today and replaces the previous Orientalist trend. Any person who takes their religious knowledge from such individuals is bound to fall into doubt and then into misguidance.

Secondly, the article clearly shows that Shii literature (hadith/history) does not propound the view that these two non-surahs were actually surahs. It is only in Sunni literature that this is found. As Shias, we have the extra privilege of having infallible guides who would correct any divergence and speak out against any misguidance. It is inconceivable that two surahs were removed from the Qur'an and the Imams were silent about it.

Thirdly, as the article states, these two were reportedly recited in qunut only, never in the prayer. That itself is enough to show that they were not considered to be surahs of the Qur'an.

Fourthly, by his admission, even staunch Orientalists like Noldeke did not accept that these were surahs.

Fifth, and finally, the arbitrary classification of texts as part of the "Qur'anic Corpus" or the "Qur'anic Canon" has no basis whatsoever. Sean Anthony tries to claim that these surahs were from the former but not the latter because it is the community that decides what is in the Qur'anic Canon. That's utter rubbish. It is the Prophet who informed the people of what was part of the Qur'an and what was not.

Therefore, in conclusion, if these two non-surahs existed, they were not surahs but probably supplications or prophetic traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:
  1. Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī
  2. Ḥasan al-Baṣrī
  3. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib
  4. ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ
  5. Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī
  6. Ṭāriq b. Shihāb
  7. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al -Malik al-Anṣārī
  8. Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān
  9. Salama  b. Kuhayl
  10. ʿAzra b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Khuzāʿī
  11. Maymūn b. Mihrān
  12. Ḥammād b. Salama
  13. Muḥammad b. Isḥāq

Just to make a correction, some of the people on this list may not have thought the two prayers to be part of the Qur'an and referred to them as two surahs, but simply said that Ubayy's codex included these two prayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

ust to make a correction, some of the people on this list may not have thought the two prayers to be part of the Qur'an and referred to them as two surahs, but simply said that Ubayy's codex included these two prayers.

The Qur'an which I have with me also has a prayer at its end, we call it dua-e-khatam-e-Qur'an. 

And none claim that it is a part of Qur'an. 

Edited by Logic1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 5:38 PM, Guest Wisdom Needed said:

 It is inconceivable that two surahs were removed from the Qur'an and the Imams were silent about it.

This seems to be a pretty good argument against the Qur’aniyyah of these two du'as.

But still, it's interesting to see how many early authorities believed that they were two surahs.

Although, after reading some of the statements a few times, I'm inclined to think that most of the people he listed who referred to these supplications as "two surahs", didn't actually believe that they were surahs, but just called them surahs to express the fact that they were in Ubayy's mushaf.

For example, the statement from 'Ata b. Abi Rabah is:

Quote

"Pray these two surās (hātayni l-sūratayn) which are found in the reading (qirāʾa) of Ubayy"

Can we conclude from this statement that 'Ata himself believed that these were two surahs that were divinely revealed as part of the Qur'an? Or did he just refer to them as such to signify that they were chapters in Ubayy's codex? To me, the second seems more plausible. 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 1:38 AM, Guest Wisdom Needed said:

 . . . not a Muslim. All his works are 'academic' and inclined against normative Islamic beliefs. This is a common trend in academia today and replaces the previous Orientalist trend. Any person who takes their religious knowledge from such individuals is bound to fall into doubt and then into misguidance.

As an academic historian wrote, the fields of archeology, "orientalism", and all were devised to serve colonial interests.

Maybe we should set up Departments of Occidentalism to counter-attack. Let the West now respond to our postulats.

 

Good post, WisNee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 1:38 AM, Guest Wisdom Needed said:

Firstly, Sean Anthony is not a Muslim. All his works are 'academic' and inclined against normative Islamic beliefs. This is a common trend in academia today and replaces the previous Orientalist trend. Any person who takes their religious knowledge from such individuals is bound to fall into doubt and then into misguidance.

Salams,

I actually know Dr.. Anthony as a distant acquaintance and have corresponded with him a few times, I don't think this is a fair characterization. Sean Anthony is an atheist but it isn't something meant to directly target Muslims or Islam and disprove our normative beliefs. He works in a framework outside our religion so its normative interpretation isn't relevant to him. But to frame this within an orientalist-Muslim struggle is wrong to say the least. The days of Bernard Lewis are gone, they were gone while he was still alive. There is certainly an awareness of what Said put forth in Orientalism and the works which built themselves on top of that and academia dealing with the study of Islam has moved away from that. Muslims like to use academics in our polemics against Christians and Jews -- I'll see them talking about the implications of textual criticism and studies into the origins of Christianity and Judaism -- but we will throw the baby out with the bath water when these scholars discuss Islam. I think we should consider their historiography before jumping and accusing them of being orientalists intending on misguiding Muslims. It's an easy way to dismiss things we don't like. But you are right, while western academia might provide interesting research and should kick eastern scholarship into shape, it isn't where we draw our theology though it might inform us.

On 11/9/2019 at 1:38 AM, Guest Wisdom Needed said:

Fourthly, by his admission, even staunch Orientalists like Noldeke did not accept that these were surahs.

Right, but scholarship also goes past the conclusions of Noldeke and continues to reach new research. He probably wouldn't much care that Noldeke didn't agree with him if he had a good argument -- at least per himself -- to say that Noldeke is wrong.

On 11/9/2019 at 1:38 AM, Guest Wisdom Needed said:

Fifth, and finally, the arbitrary classification of texts as part of the "Qur'anic Corpus" or the "Qur'anic Canon" has no basis whatsoever.

It doesn't have a basis in Islamic literature but he's basing this categorization on what prominent scholarship of the Qur'an thinks about the non-Uthmanic Qur'an.

 

While we are in theological agreement regarding the position of the Imams and all, it's immaterial to Anthony. He's not Muslim as you pointed out. These answers only work for a Muslim audience but don't actually work well to dismiss the evidence he brings you need to show that there was some early Muslim acceptance of this as part of the Qur'an. But then early Muslims differed quite a bit about what was part of the Qur'an and how to read it, that's how you can have so many contradictory readings both in the canonical Qira'aat and the shaadh ones, or that Abdullah b. Mas'ud didn't consider the mu'awadhatan as part of the Qur'an (and If I recall correctly not even al-Fatiha). The problem he refers to isn't exactly new and it's not a good answer to him to simply say "yeah but our theology dismisses it" when he doesn't accept our theology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

I wouldn't take serious anything coming out of a person named Sean Anthony least of all his wild boast against the only book from the Creator in existence in the world atm..

Is an example of a non-argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...