Ibn Masud guilty of kufr?

[confusedshia]

Salam,

Sunnis claim that many classical Shia scholars believed in tahrif. Sunnis often ask Shias: "if someone rejects an ayah or surah of the Quran, is this kufr?" - the answer is almost always "yes", then Sunnis ask "If it is kufr to reject an ayah or surah, then some classical Shia scholars must be guilty of kufr".

Can the same not be asked about Ibn Masud? I was listening to a Mohammed Hijab video and the brother claims that Ibn Masud rejected the last two Surahs of the Quran, but later changed his opinion. So my question is this: Despite changing his opinion, was Ibn Masud guilty of apostasy at that moment in time when he rejected the last two surahs of the Quran?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

For someone to be mistaken during the period of Quran compilation is not the same as someone rejecting parts of the Quran or believing its been altered AFTER the period of compilation.

Those who erred in the early days of Quranic compilation are excused.

Its not possible to make such mistakes after the period of Quran compilation when the mushaf was a uniform book known throughout the entire muslim world.

Those shia who believe in tareef are not just making an excusable error.

[glorfindel]

Salam,

Sunnis claim that many classical Shia scholars believed in tahrif. Sunnis often ask Shias: "if someone rejects an ayah or surah of the Quran, is this kufr?" - the answer is almost always "yes", then Sunnis ask "If it is kufr to reject an ayah or surah, then some classical Shia scholars must be guilty of kufr".

Can the same not be asked about Ibn Masud? I was listening to a Mohammed Hijab video and the brother claims that Ibn Masud rejected the last two Surahs of the Quran, but later changed his opinion. So my question is this: Despite changing his opinion, was Ibn Masud guilty of apostasy at that moment in time when he rejected the last two surahs of the Quran?

It's not the same thing because what ibn Masud (ra) initially believed was that these were some form of invocation and not part of the Quran.  He later changed his opinion and we know this because the chains of narration for the Quran we have received from his students all include the last 2 surahs.  We take the mutawatir narration of the Quran over Ahad narrations.

Secondly no sunni has used this as an evidence that the Quran is corrupted - no sunni accused ibn Masud (ra) that he believed in tahrif because the Quran he delivered via his students include the muwadhatayn.

Finally the Shia scholars used the narrations of Tahrif from the Imams according to Shia sources, by whose time the Quran was known and collected, as evidence that the Quran is corrupted.  We still have this belief amongst Shia scholars today who say the Quran is corrupted.

Which Sunni has used this examples from the time of collection and examples of Nasikh Wa Mansukh as examples of Tahrif?

I hope this helps.

[Link]

For someone to be mistaken during the period of Quran compilation is not the same as someone rejecting parts of the Quran or believing its been altered AFTER the period of compilation.

Those who erred in the early days of Quranic compilation are excused.

Why is that?

If the reasoning that Mohammad is the last of the Prophets, such that revelation cannot be corrupted, than how can they be excused?

From another perspective, the opposite can be argued. That while those who heard from the Prophet himself the verse "We brought down the reminder and we are going to safeguard it" and with the Prophet himself clarifying the interpretation of Quran and there to be asked....

Surely people would have asked him if there is a chance that Quran can get corrupted and surely it is something the Quran emphasizes that it won't.

That while they heard it, those who haven't heard from the Prophet or the 12 Imams clarification directly that the Quranic verses regarding the subject are to be interpreted that the Quran is safeguarded, they can be excused on the grounds they can misunderstand the verse while the same is not true of the companions of the Prophet who would have heard the clarification and emphasises that the Quran being safeguarded meant it would be safeguarded in this and that matter.

And so either no one is excused, or the latter people can be excused, but certainly, the excuse for companions is not making sense to me at this moment.

Perhaps you can clarify.

[Farid]

Salam,

Sunnis claim that many classical Shia scholars believed in tahrif. Sunnis often ask Shias: "if someone rejects an ayah or surah of the Quran, is this kufr?" - the answer is almost always "yes", then Sunnis ask "If it is kufr to reject an ayah or surah, then some classical Shia scholars must be guilty of kufr".

Can the same not be asked about Ibn Masud? I was listening to a Mohammed Hijab video and the brother claims that Ibn Masud rejected the last two Surahs of the Quran, but later changed his opinion. So my question is this: Despite changing his opinion, was Ibn Masud guilty of apostasy at that moment in time when he rejected the last two surahs of the Quran?

Wa alaykum alsalam,

There is no indication that Ibn Mas'ud believed that Al Falaq and Al Nisa' were the words of man to begin with. All we have is him saying that it doesn't belong in the Qur'an. As we all know, not all the speech of Allah is included in the Qur'an.

This is unlike the Shia belief in Tahreef that includes alterations of text that causes meanings to be changed.

The two cases cannot be compared.

[Link]

The two cases cannot be compared.

Why can it not be compared? Refer to my post above.

[Farid]

The cases are different. Refer to my previous post.

[Link]

They are different but as far as verses go with the reminder being protected the companions had the prophet to explain and emphasize on the right interpretation.  Also any reasoning that proves the case that the Quran would be protected would have been more emphasized to the companions.


So if anything latter people would be more excused than the people who lived during the time of the Prophet.

[Hani]

This is an irrelevant example, Ibn Mas`ud's time was different than ours, in his time there was no ONE standard Mushaf, each person had his own Mushaf, during `Uthman's time there was a project to unite people upon one Mushaf to avoid conflict and problems. Although this project resulted in a better compilation, still many folks held on to their own Masahif and recitations, with the passing of time those different Masahif and recitations would be dismissed and everyone would adopt `Uthman's codex.

Let's make the comparison clearer:

Ibn Mas`ud simply had an opinion that those two last small chapters were supplications, not necessarily a part of the Qur'an. He didn't believe the Companions changed it intentionally, nor was true revelation lost, the book was intact in his view, the people around him were free to believe what they wanted since the vastv majority of people never had a full Qur'an in book form lying around in their houses. The reason Ibn Mas`ud believed this, is because he must have heard the Prophet (saw) say so, it's very possible they were merely supplications initially then God made them a part of the Qur'an due to their importance in people's lives. Or they were Qur'an from the beginning, the Prophet (saw) recited them as supplications so Ibn Mas`ud didn't know they were actual Qur'an. Eitherway, he changed his mind later in his life when he was faced with multiple evidences, that's why the recitation that reaches us through his chain contains the two chapters.

The Shia scholars on the other hand came many years later, AFTER the Qur'anic text became popular in its current form and agreed upon by the nation. They said certain verses/chapters were intentionally removed by the Companions, guidance was lost, the text was eternally corrupted, there's no way of accessing the true revelation/knowledge. Those Shia died insisting on this belief and propagated it to their followers today.

That's a HUGE difference.

[Link]

I don't know if you guys really believe in your own reasoning and are brain dead or just trying to make noise to deceive people.

I can't tell anymore.

[Hadrami]

so what do you think confusedshia? If ibn mas'ud initially didnt know it was part of quran, is that the same thing as shia scholar who believed part of quran is changed?

[Hani]

I can't tell anymore.

Nothing new, you usually "can't tell" anything.

Comparing apples and rocket fuel, there's isn't even a common denominator in your claim.

[Link]

I can't tell anymore.

Nothing new, you usually "can't tell" anything.

Comparing apples and rocket fuel, there's isn't even a common denominator in your claim.

Actually, I figured it out.

You guys are brain dead BECAUSE you seek to deceive people as Quran says "God doesn't guide who misleads".

[Farid]

I can't tell anymore.

Nothing new, you usually "can't tell" anything.

Comparing apples and rocket fuel, there's isn't even a common denominator in your claim.

Actually, I figured it out.

You guys are brain dead BECAUSE you seek to deceive people as Quran says "God doesn't guide who misleads".

Oh, be nice.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Salam,

Sunnis claim that many classical Shia scholars believed in tahrif. Sunnis often ask Shias: "if someone rejects an ayah or surah of the Quran, is this kufr?" - the answer is almost always "yes", then Sunnis ask "If it is kufr to reject an ayah or surah, then some classical Shia scholars must be guilty of kufr".

Can the same not be asked about Ibn Masud? I was listening to a Mohammed Hijab video and the brother claims that Ibn Masud rejected the last two Surahs of the Quran, but later changed his opinion. So my question is this: Despite changing his opinion, was Ibn Masud guilty of apostasy at that moment in time when he rejected the last two surahs of the Quran?

Wa alaykum alsalam,

There is no indication that Ibn Mas'ud believed that Al Falaq and Al Nisa' were the words of man to begin with. All we have is him saying that it doesn't belong in the Qur'an. As we all know, not all the speech of Allah is included in the Qur'an.

This is unlike the Shia belief in Tahreef that includes alterations of text that causes meanings to be changed.

The two cases cannot be compared.

You don't need to put the Shi'a in every time your religion comes under attack.

What would be the status of someone who says Al-Baqarah is the Word of Allah but it is not a surah in the Qur'an?

[Farid]

That is a weird hypothetical question. A Muslim can be unaware that Al Baqara is a part of the Qur'an AND from Allah if they were from a very secular community.

 However, I cannot imagine a case of someone knowing of Al Baqara, that it is from Allah, and then reject it as a part of the Qur'an, since there is nothing that could lead to this opinion.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

That is a weird hypothetical question. A Muslim can be unaware that Al Baqara is a part of the Qur'an AND from Allah if they were from a very secular community.

 However, I cannot imagine a case of someone knowing of Al Baqara, that it is from Allah, and then reject it as a part of the Qur'an, since there is nothing that could lead to this opinion.

But how does that go with your comment regarding Ibn Masud, where you claimed and I quote:

There is no indication that Ibn Mas'ud believed that Al Falaq and Al Nisa' were the words of man to begin with. All we have is him saying that it doesn't belong in the Qur'an. As we all know, not all the speech of Allah is included in the Qur'an.

[Farid]

There are possibilities. One is that he assumed that it was mansookh. Another is that he thought it was a supplication, and not a part of the Qur'an. Unfortunately, the narrations aren't very clear about what his understanding was.

[Link]

The proof of the Quran all being from God and exactly what Quran is - is more binding on the companions than any other generation.

Other generations can doubt previous generations, they are not supposed to follow them blindly, and so with the bad turn of the nation, it is not odd to find people doubt whether the Quran was truly preserved.

The way Quran is confirmed is through its miraculous nature with respect to guidance. The Quran says "so bring a book exceeding in guidance than these two (book of Mohammad and book of Moses)...".

The way it guides it does so by explaining all of its verses, through elaboration. And the Sunnah manifests all these interpretations that it self-interprets endlessly, with levels and levels deeper and deeper. And we can't perceive all it interprets except with the help of those appointed interpreters and those who narrate their sayings.

There is no reason to assume there was any reason during Mohammad time to doubt the last two Surahs. The last Two surahs have an eloquent place in the Quran with respect to it's flow. Its beautiful ending to those who pay attention to its themes and understand the evils humanity faces and the dark enemies God and his Messengers.

People would have heard directly from the Prophet unambiguously there is no Prophet after him.   There cannot be dount with respect to revelation being safeguarded if Prophethood is sealed.

There is no real excuse for this.   I have to research more into why he took this stance, but I know it's not excusable by any means. There is no possibility of an excuse for a companion to doubt any Surah of Quran being part of Quran.

This while a human who the majestic wonders of Quran and it's perfection and complete nature has not come to them, they are allowed to investigate if the whole Quran remains complete and perfect....or it's not.  However, believing in end of Prophethood with belief that corruption has taken place with the last revelation is no doubt a huge injustice to reason and does away with the belief of Prophethood to begin with in that does away with all the reasons proving Prophethood.

[Abu Rumaysah]

Imam Nawawi said in “al-Majmoa sharhul al-mahzab” (3/396):

أجمع المسلمون على أن المعوذتين والفاتحة وسائر السور المكتوبة في المصحف قرآن. وأن من جحد شيئا منه كفر. وما نقل عن ابن مسعود في الفاتحة والمعوذتين باطل ليس بصحيح عنه
“Muslims agreed upon muawizaytan and Fatiha and other surahs which written in al-Mushaf of Quran, and whoever would reject thing from it is kaafir, and what about was narrated from ibn Masood regarding al-Fatiha and al-Muawizatayn is false, not authentic from him”.

Imam Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti in his priceless book “al-Itqan fi ulumil Quran” quoted ibn Hazm’s opinion on idea that ibn Masood didn’t believe those surahs were part from Quran. He said:

هذا كذب على ابن مسعود وموضوع، وإنما صح عنه قراءة عاصم عن زر عنه، وفيها المعوذتان والفاتحة.
“This is lie upon ibn Masood, and fabrication. And authentic from him qiraat (of Quran) of Asim from Zirr, and in it  al-Muawizatayn and al-Fatiha”.

Fakhratdin ar-Razi said:

الأغلب على الظن أن هذا النقل عن ابن مسعود كذب باطل
“It’s more likely to think that this (kind of) report from ibn Masood is lie and false”

Qadhi al-Bakillani said:

وأما المعوذتان، فكل من ادَّعى أن عبد الله بن مسعودٍ أنكر أن تكونا من القرآن، فقد جهل
“Regarding muawizatayn, whoever would claim that Abdullah ibn Masood rejected that they are from Quran,  is ignorant”.

The other proof that ibn Masood didn’t reject those two verses in hadith which was narrated from him.

Suyuti in his “Durr al-Mansur” wrote:

وأخرج الطبراني في الأوسط بسند حسن عن ابن مسعود عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال‏:‏ ‏”‏لقد أنزل علي آيات لم ينزل علي مثلهن المعوذتين‏”‏‏.‏
Tabarani narrated in his “al-Awsat” by hasan chain from ibn Masood, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: “Upon me revealed verses, didn’t revealed like them before – al-Muawizatayn”.

Shawkani said narrators of this hadith are thiqat in “Tuhwatu zakirin” (444)