Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
-
http//ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2008/07/interpreting_the_koran.html
-
Peace
I was reading a book called "The Muslim Jesus" by Tarif Khiladi. It confirmed my understanding. Heres a qoute "Early Islam-or "primitive Islam"...was a porous environment". Also concerning the Quran he says "As for the Qur'an...its status among believers in the early period was not comparable to what it later became. It seems not to have enjoyed any monopoly or major authority". And again Patrica Crone thought this meant the Quran was unknown to early muslim masses. But Mcdonald (or I think it was him) said this meant the Quran was less paramount. Meaning the Quran was perhaps overruled. In fact early sunnies thought the sunna could overrule the Quran. Joseph Scacht also accepted that the Quran had far less authority than now. The book I mentioned by Daniel Madigon deals with this topic in detail. If you do not want to buy the book (you shold I did) heres a perview
http//books.google.com/books?id=Fn2xu3npcUYC&pg=PP4&dq=Qur%27an%27s+Self-Image+Writing++Authority++Islam%27s+Scripture&sig=ACfU3U3q72FMQ_4k88d2CrnLf8dyrJH1Yw#PPR7,M1
-
Peace
I have decided to comment on the possibility of Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscripts. But before my comments I think revisonist history must be addresed. Many people on this
site have ideas about history that are quite unusally when compared to traditional acconts. I am not in any way saying that revisonist history is bad, or dabbling in it is
wrong. In fact condeming are amauter internet historians who have not grasped the rules of archeology and history would be condeming myself. In the days when I accepted
anything from this site, when I knew nothing about the rules of archeology and its limits, when I had no idea about documentry critism, and when I knew nothing about
philosophy I fully belived that the prophet Muhammed was from Northern Arabia, classical arabic was a fabrication, and the Quran's true context was Nabatia. When I matured
and realized the foolishness of my ways these ideas looked quite funny and laughable.
My denial of such ideas occured when I read Hoylands book (mistakenly used by revisionists but meant by the author to fight such ideas) Patrica Crone's unoffical indirect
renuncation of her belif that Muhammad lived in North Arabia and unofficail acceptance of Muhammad's life in Mecca. Also my understanding of history changed when I read
books concerning the field. In genaral my staments on this issue would create a lengthy post. Now to the Quranic manuscripts. If one says all reports from this period are false
(many are likily true) there existense proves a historacal memory in these so called fabricaters. They had no reason to lie. If you belive that they had reasons to lie that
means you do not really understand the context of these reports. They may have fabricated these reports to aknowlegde a certain commen historcal memory. It is clear that
maybe a Quran was never canosed until 48 years after the prophet died not 25. Why you may ask did the prophet not canonise the Quran. This qeustion lies at the heart of
what the Quran is.
Madigan's book convinced me of its position. All who can should read this book. Also other books by scholars and even books by the scholar Shafia can give answers. Shafia's
arguments suck.
So do not read it for some excellent arguments. Its polemic and attacks agianst other muslim groups in the second century of Islam (the book was writen in the second
century of Islam) are the valuble portions since they give insight into early Islam's sectarian flavour and peoples veiws at the time about the Quran. Any further questions
please ask me. Also if I sound arrogant im not. Writing as the Philosopher Socrates noted destroys speechs tone, meaning I am quite humble but because of my writing style I
may sound like a hauty fool. Again if you have any questions please ask.
God Bless
-
Sorry for attacking this thread (nobodys intrested in it any more) but I forgot to tell you something. John Burton belived the Quran was not a source of law untill the 800's. Meaning it had no legal authority after Muhammad's death even among the companions.
-
Peace
Again sorry for being the only person to particapate in this thread but Wansborgh also thought the Quran was not used legally and that its authority was meager at best. Althogh the idea is right the inference drawn by Wansborgh is totaly wrong. Since the Quran only starts to become a authoratative refrence after the 800's Wansborgh wrongly assumes the Quran to be a product of the 800's and of Iraq not of Arabia and the 600's. He thinks the Quran had evolved and was canonesed in 200 years. The inference may be wrong but his statement about the Qurans early authority is right and was confirmed years before by Joseph Scacht and Goldizer
-
Peace
I know this thread has been neglected and any memory of it has vanised from the people who posted on it. So you may ask why I bother to post on this thread? Well the honest reason is that I want a debate. I know the possibly existence of so called pre-Uthmanic Quran Manuscripts does not seem to be a issue to think on or something to waste one's mental energy on. I think it is. The manuscripts themselves are not important but if they exist they would offer insight into the Qurans status among early believers. You might ask how? Well, if Muhammad bothered to preserve the text then that means he wanted it to be preserved for posterity. In other words he considred it important enough to protect and as a result it offers a form of indirect evidence for the contemporery Muslim belief that the Quran is the final eternal word of God meant for all times. Although this understanding of mere pre-Uthmanic manuscripts may seem a streech but some people may draw such a infrence. Then you may ask why care about the Qurans early status? My answer is simple. In these times of modernity Quranic punishments such as 100 lashes for adultery, cutting the hand of a thief (I know some have offered arguments saying the verse is not talking about cutting a thief's hand but they do not really convince me), treason being punised by tying and ruthlessly cutting the hands and feet of the person who commitid treason are now considred cruel and quite ruthless. Such ideas are now regarded as repulsive and often disturb the modern mind. But some who believe in the eternal status of Quranic punisments like those mentioned above, or Quranic rules and recommendations such as womens testomny in business, and the inherintance issue, have made apolgetic excuses to save themselves the shame of defending such practices. Sometimes they make intrepations far from the text. More intellingent Muslim scholars (like Fazlur Rahman) accept that the Quran has a uncomprmisingly beutiful egilatren spirit and that the Quran preaches social justice and radical brotherhood. But these primative and quite cruel laws were comprmises by the Quran since without such cruel practices Islam would have died out (in particular for Islam's survival see treason). But Muslims no longer live in the cruel world of sixth century Arabia. The world has changed, Islam is no longer a fresh new religion always on the verge of destruction, apostacy no longer poses the threat it use to, meaning apostates are not commiting treason or trying to destroy Islam, women now are independent and now can fully compete with men in matters relating to business (see testmony), many women run there own households, and also bring home the bacon and need money unlike the Quran's originally sixth century context (see inheritense). But such "contextual" Muslims are not very popular even among us. Many of are members never think of these cruel punisments as a means of controling sixth century problems through sixth century solutions. Also very few among us have considred some of these punisments and even rules ways of saving the new religion. Islam was a vunrable faith which wanted to change arab soceity. The Quran wanted Muslims to help the poor, save orphans, and administer social, econimic, political, and legal justice. But Islam could only do these great things and make the Arabs into a respactable society if it had unchallenged authority. And in late antiqity authority (especily unchallenged authority) came often only after much blood and cruelty. As Niccolo Machiavelli would have said the ends justify the means. Instead of accepting this reality and saying these cruel practices and unapplicable regulations are not meant for are time, many among us act foolisly and gloss these practices, our advocate humoris intrepations that leave much to be desired. After that lengthy opening I think we can now understand why my constant and somewhat iriting barrage of evidence from respected scholars and refrences to anchient sources that reveal that the Quran was never used after Muhammad's death as a legal source and it was not even refrenced in legal circles and perhaps it may have been absent in moral circles as well. Only in the 800's was the Quran to be considred the eternal, last, and final word of God. I think also ignoring all I said, from a purely historiacal perspective manuscripts before Uthman are far fected. Even the Sunni claim of the Quran being caninised by Abu Bakr and Omar then merely copyed by Utman was refuted by a certain scholar (I think it was Noldeke). He showed Utman was the first even to care about transcribing the Quran. I think there should be a consturtive and calm debate on this issue. But I think I made a mistake taking this thread away from a disscussion of manuscripts into a disscussion of early authority (in which I talk to myself). Please particapate in this thread. But forget all I said about early authority. Any discussion should be about the purpose of this thread. Early manuscipts. I will make my own thread on the Quran's early authority with more extensive refrences to respected scholars and other works. For now I think its sufficent to talk about the manuscipts. Also I hope now you who have looked at this thread know why I have such a intrest in it. Also look at my second comment on this thread.
"early muslims considered the Quran a symbol. Early muslim law did not accept written evidence. Yet the Quran demands it in one verse. For Adultery stoning was used. Even though the Quran mandated flogging. Many laws and rules within the Quran were knowingly avoided. It was never considred the final word. It was merely a symbol of Gods affection for humans. In early Muslim belief its rules and laws were for Muhammed's time and community. It was a "jawab" or answer meant for Arabia. It was not meant for every time and place. In fact its position was debated. Meaning some early muslim considreded it a assurance that God speaks and cares about the world. That he will speak and has spoken. Yet some Muslims considered the Quran the final word. The second group was a minority. But eventully they became the majority. But they found the Quran mute on many important legal issues. This became a probelm... Also another probelm appered. If the Quran was for every age then it must have been recorded before time. This gave rise to the belief that the Um Kitab mentioned in the Quran was a source book for the Quran. This created many more probelms that are stated in the book. To solve these issues the sunna or Muhammed's example convenintly came along. The concept of inner (batin) and outward (zahir) meanings was introduced. And many concepts found in the Quran were altered or taken out of focus. But the sunna created more confusion and generated more debate. What was the sunna? Was it to be found in hadiths or in the city of Madinah itself (Imam Malik held this view)? Did the Quran supersede it? Or did the sunna supersede the Quran..."
God Bless
-
I was reading Daniel Brown's "A new Introduction to Islam". He also confirmed my veiw. He states that the Quran had very little authority in the begining. It was not used for legal or ethical purposes. Only untill the 9 century was it to gain its important status.
-
Peace
I just love this thread. Im unchallenged thats why! Nobody corrects a mistake or says im wrong. Why is nobody intrested in this thread anymore. The person who started it (maxq) is also not having any intreset in it. But its also a little fun since nobody is challenging me, so I can post any thing I want. Anyway after reveiwing all the books in my libray I have realized my blindness. Before I started ranting on this thread I never noticed that all of them stated at some point in their books that in the early days of Islam the Quran was not a source of law. It was never discused by legal jurists in that period. In debates with Christans the Quran is absent. When mentioned in any promenint book of that period the mention is breif. It is sometimes overuled by a companions decision. Its norms were never considred final. Scholars knew the Quran had made a clear recomadition and sometimes even a clear command, yet they would ignore it. All my books say this. Although books by Muslims in my libray give very breif mention of these facts. Books by non-muslims are more clear. Also all my books say the Quran gained its esteemed position and importance in the 800's. Also even though the Quran was after the 9th century important, the physical text had not gained it present status. Imam Bukari (collecter of Sahih Bukari) thought that the Quran could be read in the bathroom. Also in the state of nakedness. He also said someone in the state of ritual impurity could read the book. Also the wording of the Quran was not resepected. A look at the dome of the rock will revel this. Countless inscriptions from this period have Quranic verses. But many times two unrealted verses are patched together and made to look like one verse. Also phrases are freely inserted without warning. Also variant readings of the Quran were allowed (eventully only ten). The Quran after Muhammad's death would be seen by both his companions and there desendants as a symbol of God's affection rather than the word of God. It was never thought to be all God wanted to say it was only proof he would and has spoken. Before this thread and my dialog with myself on this thread I never noticed these facts contained within the books I had. And whenever I reread a book I have, it reitaretes the Qurans low status in the early period. But again I will make a separte post on this subject. If you want to discuss something on this thread about pre-uthmanic Qurans please do. This thread needs somebody else to write in it. But still again its fun not being challenged.
-
Peace
I was reading Graham's book on the Quran and Hadith ul Qudsi. He confirmed my understanding also. But his whole chapter was not on the Quran's legal status and authority but on the Quran's generally status and authority. Still it showed succesefully that the Quran had less authority.
-
Peace
I just love this thread. Im unchallenged thats why! Nobody corrects a mistake or says im wrong. Why is nobody intrested in this thread anymore. The person who started it (maxq) is also not having any intreset in it. But its also a little fun since nobody is challenging me, so I can post any thing I want. Anyway after reveiwing all the books in my libray I have realized my blindness. Before I started ranting on this thread I never noticed that all of them stated at some point in their books that in the early days of Islam the Quran was not a source of law. It was never discused by legal jurists in that period. In debates with Christans the Quran is absent. When mentioned in any promenint book of that period the mention is breif. It is sometimes overuled by a companions decision. Its norms were never considred final. Scholars knew the Quran had made a clear recomadition and sometimes even a clear command, yet they would ignore it. All my books say this. Although books by Muslims in my libray give very breif mention of these facts. Books by non-muslims are more clear. Also all my books say the Quran gained its esteemed position and importance in the 800's. Also even though the Quran was after the 9th century important, the physical text had not gained it present status. Imam Bukari (collecter of Sahih Bukari) thought that the Quran could be read in the bathroom. Also in the state of nakedness. He also said someone in the state of ritual impurity could read the book. Also the wording of the Quran was not resepected. A look at the dome of the rock will revel this. Countless inscriptions from this period have Quranic verses. But many times two unrealted verses are patched together and made to look like one verse. Also phrases are freely inserted without warning. Also variant readings of the Quran were allowed (eventully only ten). The Quran after Muhammad's death would be seen by both his companions and there desendants as a symbol of God's affection rather than the word of God. It was never thought to be all God wanted to say it was only proof he would and has spoken. Before this thread and my dialog with myself on this thread I never noticed these facts contained within the books I had. And whenever I reread a book I have, it reitaretes the Qurans low status in the early period. But again I will make a separte post on this subject. If you want to discuss something on this thread about pre-uthmanic Qurans please do. This thread needs somebody else to write in it. But still again its fun not being challenged.
the person who started this thread is pulling 16 hour days at work for the past 5 weeks... sorry to keep you waiting but I may have other things to do.
-
Prophet Muhammad never knew his follower's would collect his divine utterences and call the collection of these utterences Al Quran. When Muhammad was alive revealtions were treated very unussaly. Basicly there was no Quran. What is today known as the Quran may be only 2 percent or 1 of what Muhammad considered divine revealtions. Although it is clear the Quran has not been edited or gone throgh a evolution. In other words Muhammad would have recodnized the contents of are Qurans. But he would have been confused why these divine sayings had been collected and why they were missing more sayings. Then you may ask what is the Quran mentioned in the Quran. Madigan's book answers the qeustion. But to confirm everything stated above read Graham's book. He also shows the Quran we have in mind is not what the early community had in mind. Although the theory of abrogation is a later fabrication it offers a glimpse into early Islam. The theory of abrogation was created because if the Quran was perfect why were there contridictions in it. In early Islam the Quran's contridictory nature was never a problem. God gave a edict out of his wisdom. But that edict was considred temporery. When a new problem will arise God will give a new edict. Even though these divine sayings which we refer to as Quranic verses would contradict each other they were respected. God loves humanity. So God would never give a final solution. Conditions change so much that a final solution is a impossibilaty. God never fixed any of his rulings. In other words God is a dynamic authority that provides often contradictory solutions to probelms because times change. That is way the Quran is so contradictory. So you may ask what happened to a Quranic verse challenging people to find a contridiction in the Quran. The Quran mentioned in this verse and others is not are collection of divine sayings. If you read "Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam" By William A. Graham (not to be confused with the christan evangilist) you will find the answer to that qeustion. For early Islam's view of God's evoling authority and God's dynamicness read Patrica Crone's and Martin Hind's "God's Caliph". Although I do not buy Crone's thesis fully I think she has been able to show early Islam's veiw of divine authority. Again though her theory about the caliph in early Islam being more important then prophet Muhammad and having more respect than prophet Muhammad is I think a streach. Although I am of the opinion that in primative Islam the Caliph was eqaul to prophet Muhammad and may have also been considred a recipient of divine revaulation. I also think the so called Hadith ul Qudsi are actully the so called revaulations which the early caliphs may have thought God had revaled to them are inspired to them. But later these so called divine caliphil utterences which may have been eqaul to the Quran were made into prophetic utterences that were now thought to be extra-Quranic revaltions to Muhammad. I also agree with Crone and Hind that origanally the Caliph had his own sunnah. Later the Caliph's sunnah was transformed into Muhammad's sunnah.
-
L.Hu,
I wish I could reply right away but your post deserves to be properly researched without general assumptions. I appreciate your reply and see that you are bringing an excellent perspective to the table that one needs to look into by setting time aside. I will do so but I am not sure with my schedule how that is possible in the near future. Rest assured, I will try to research this... the only problem for me is when, and not if/whether. -
You can research if you want. Since you can not research in the near future its ok. Work is very very important and essential. My perspective is not important if it disrupts your schedule. But if you do want to research there are alot of books were you can. Here are a few. I will classifie them into what they are about. "Hadith Scholarship". First books by westerners who consider hadiths unrealible and not the words of Muhammad but words put into the mouth of Prophet Muhammad centuries later. These scholars are called "sceptical". Heres a classic. Muslim Studies by Ignaz Goldziher. This two volume work is a classic as said before and undoubtedly laid the grond and set the tone for all future research. The first volume is a essential work on early Islam and arabia. But since we are at hadith scholarship and in particular the "sceptical" school we will comment on the second volume. The second volume is concerned with the devolempment of hadiths. Before Goldziher Aloy Sprenger and William Muir had shown doubts about the hadith literture's historical validity. But they accepted Sahih Bukari, Sahih Muslim, and Tirmadha as railible sources. Goldziher shocked Scholars and fellow oriantalist's with his claim that most if not all hadiths were later fabrications that were made by muslims mostly in Iraq, Syria, Arabia, and to a lesser extent Iran. They reflect the opinons and beliefs of feuding sectarian groups within primative Islam that wanted there opinons to be attributed to prophet Muhammad to gain credence. In basic his conclusion was that when reading Sahih Bukari or any Hadith book you should not search for the opinons of Muhammad or a genuine record of events during Muhammad's life. Instead what you should be searching for is a rich frozen record of the opinons of early Muslims. Naturally this left historians with nothing. There only source for Muhammad's life was gone. They could not write any biography of Muhammad. Thus for 50 years historians praised and payed lip service to Goldziher's finds but used Hadiths often in writing the story of Muhammad's life. Because of the lack of genuine critacal scholarship a man came and sealed the faith of Hadiths in the west. That man was Joseph Scahct. His classic is "The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence". This book is in almost every bibliography on this subject. The book is essential and it is best not to summarize its contents. A simple thing to know about it is that it has had a monumental impact and is a manifesto for people like Patrica Crone and John Wansborough. Read it. The Sectarian Milieu Content And Composition of Islamic Salvation History by John Wansborough is also a classic but is to be approcaed with caution. I will later list more but im very tired. good bye.
-
Read Harald Motzki's excellent anthology called "Hadith Origins and Developments" by Harald Motzki. Contains alot of rare articles that are hard to find. Youthful God Anthropomorphism in Early Islam by Josef Van Ess is also good. Between Bible and Quran The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image by Uri Rubin is excellent. The Development Of Islamic Ritual by G. R. Hawting is also a good work. The Eye of the Beholder The Life of Muhammad As Viewed by the Early Muslims--A Textual Analysiy by Uri Rubin is essential. Muslim Tradition Studies in Chronology, Provenance and Authorship of Early Hadith by G. H. A. Juynboll is a good middle way perspective between sceptism (Joseph Scauht) and niaveness (Nabia Abbot). The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period by Herbert Berg is very good and a excellent example of sceptical scholarship although his doubts concerning every Islamic text and some of his claims and his likings for the too sceptical Wansborough are I think wrong but still very ground breaking. Also if you read any early arabic text from this period that is translated you will note that the amount of times the Quran is mentioned increses with time and also in legal and even ethical disscussions it is absent untill the eight centurie. I think you may have read Daniel Madigan's book but if not you should get the book. Basicly in early Islam god was a evolving authority who would continue to communicate with man. It was this dynamic veiw of God that made Muslims so careless towards the Quran. It was meant for Arabia and as such was not meant for all time. Besides this the Quran is also a small sampling of what were divine utterrences. The fact that legally, ethically, and sometimes theologically the Quran was treated as it did not exist made some foolish western scholars think the Quran is a product of the 8th centurie and of Iraq. The discoverie of the Sana manuscripts refute this but still the sources point to the Quran having little authority. Looking forward to chating with you Maxq
-
Oh I forgot about one thing. The Umayyads are depicted in all Abbaised sources as non-religous, secular, unmuslim, greedy, and cruel beasts. In "God's Caliph" Crone and Hinds show quite well that this better reflects Abbaised hatred of their Umayad predessors and less a historacal reality. In fact Umayyad Caliph's may have thought of themselves as equal to prophets. They would have had their own "sunnahs" or examples. They probably believed that God was their friend and they may have considered themselves recepients of divine revaltion. Thus the picture painted by later sources are wrong. With that lets consider the Umayyad punishment for theft. Some at this site have tried to show that the Quran is not advocating hand mutailation. I remain unconvinced at their attempts. So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting. The Umayyad punishment was flogging. Something to reflect on before you start researching the Quran's early authority.
-
..........So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting. The Umayyad punishment was flogging. Something to reflect on before you start researching the Quran's early authority.
Assalaam Alaikum @L.Hu
Im sorry your assertion that the Quran suggests mutilating and cutting is a false literal misinterpretation of the Quran....
Even by reading the English translation without delving deeply into Quranic Arabic grammatical analysis makes it quite clear.
? Surely those who reject, if they had everything that is in the earth and the like of it with it, to REDEEM themselves from the punishment on the day of judgement, it would never be accepted from them. And for them is a grievous punishment.
Those who reject guidance will have a punishment on their judgement.
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands. a punishment by way of EXAMPLE, FROM ALLAH, for their crime. and Allah is Exalted in power.
Even the translation I posted has some problems, yet as you can read it states 'a punishment by way of EXAMPLE from Allah'....NOT by Men cutting off someone's hands!
Lets address the quranic arabic grammar...I will just post it, its self explanatory. No commentary needed.
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands. a punishment by way of EXAMPLE, FROM ALLAH, for their crime. and Allah is Exalted in power.
Wa alssariqu wa alssariqatu fa iqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bima kasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun
FA (conjunctive) means and then, therefore; Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 809
IQTAAAOO (PASSIVE IMPERFECT Verb)means to separate, sever relations, interrupt, silence ; Root word Qata?a
Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 906- 912 (qata?a)Passive means a verb, or form of a verb, which expresses the effect of the action on the Subject of the verb, Not active, but acted upon; suffering or receiving impressions or INTERNAL influences
aydiyahuma means by his effort, owing to his activity, by or through him, by his means, scatter in all directions, disperse;Root word Yad, foreleg, handle, power, control, influence, authority, assistance
Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 1296- 1296 (yad) (aidihim)The ayah is NOT cutting off someone's 'hands', its severing the influences, power and resources of the mujrimeen/criminals.
? Thus have We made for every prophet an enemy among the sinners/criminals / mujrimeen. but enough is thy Lord to guide and to help.
? And likewise in every village (i.e. community) We have made its criminals / mujrimeeha big people to plan in it. And they do not plan except against themselves / their souls and they are not aware of it.
Mujrimeen (act. Pic, MASCULINE singular Verb Form IV) Sinner ;Root word Jarama to cut off, loop off, acquire a thing, commit a crime, drive one into crime, ONE WHO CUTS OFF TIES WITH ALLAH
We are judged by what our 'hands' produced. Our 'hands' represent our influence and acceptance of guidance or rejection of that guidance.
If you couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the Unbelievers (at death), (How) they smite their faces and their backs, (saying). "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire-
"Because of (the deeds) which your (own) hands sent forth; for Allah is never unjust to His servants.
-
I desire more evidence. More evidence from Quran
Assalaam Alaikum
@L. Hu
I have provided substantial evidence to refute your negative allegation against the Quran. If the evidence I have provided is insufficient then please suggest what evidence is required to to validate your concerns.
If your acceptance criteria is rational and logical, the Quran will confirm them. If your acceptance criteria is illogical and/or irrational then the Quran will also confirm the illegitimacy of your criteria.
Keep in mind that the burden of proof is upon the accuser, thus any negative assertions and/or allegations against the Quran MUST be proven, from the Quran itself. (by the accuser)
The Quran will bear witness to the truth.
I await your response.
? Say. "What thing is greatest in evidence?" Say. "Allah is witness between me and you; This Qur'an has been Revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can you possibly bear witness that besides Allah there is another Allah?" Say. "No! I cannot bear witness!" Say. "But in truth He is the one Allah, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."
The revelation of the Book is from Allah the Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.
Such are the Signs of Allah, which are rehearsed to you in Truth; then in what hadeeth will they believe after (rejecting) Allah and His Signs?
These are clear evidences to men and a Guidance and Mercy to those of assured Faith.