 All praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the one and only true God, the most compassionate, the merciful, there is nothing like him whatsoever, yet he is the all hearing and the all seeing, and peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad, the final messenger of God, the Seal of the Prophets, the Commander of the Righteous, the Leader of the Messengers, and the Beloved of the Lord of the Worlds. In this Khutbah, inshallah, I want to continue the topic that I started during Ramadan, the month of the Qur'an, the topic of establishing the preservation of the Qur'an. I mentioned last time that in recent times there has been a renewed sense of vigor among some radical historical revisionists and some Christian polemicists to create certain shubuhat, certain doubts or suspicions in the minds of the Muslim masses, with the ultimate goal of convincing us that our sacred scripture is not preserved, and this is just indicative of the broader current of Zeitgeist, which wants to sort of tear down traditional religion and traditional morality, and replace the worship of God with the worship of the self, the worship of the nafs. We also mentioned how Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala perfectly reveals to us in the Qur'an the intentions and motives of those who attack the Qur'an. Now the underlying reason that has caused many Muslims to struggle with this issue is actually their own ignorance in the traditional sciences of the Qur'an, in fact their misapprehension as to what the Qur'an even is, the very nature of the Qur'an, the method and purpose of the Qur'anic revelation. Many Muslims have outright abandoned the study of traditional texts concerning the ulum al Qur'an, and have rather relied on amateur preachers and apologists to teach them about their scripture, and in fact they were miseducated by some of these preachers and apologists by certain mu'adh and certain du'adh who in their zeal to repudiate the Bible and draw a sharp distinction between the Qur'an and the Bible, they began to assert that the text of the Qur'an was uniformic in nature from its very inception, that unlike the Bible that has numerous textual variants, the Qur'an has no textual variants. This of course is not true, this is an inaccurate reductionist simplistic understanding of the Qur'an that has harmed our community. So what is accurate? What do we learn from our traditional literature written by our traditional Ulama? We learn that the Qur'an has never been a uniformic text, but rather a multi-formic text, and it does have textual variants, but these are not of the same kind as those of the Bible, specifically the New Testament. There is a major difference. The textual variants of the New Testament were deliberate changes made to the text by scribes, decades, and centuries after the Prophet Isa A.S., that were motivated by theological rivalries among certain early Christian groups. The textual variants of the Qur'an are traceable to the Prophet Muhammad S.A.S., and are a facet of the very revelatory nature of the Qur'an. In other words, Qur'anic variants are part of the revelation. That is a big difference. And it is the Alem, the scholar, not the amateur preacher who can explain these things to us with sophistication and with attention to nuance. We all need to seek out the Ulama, and this is something that the Qur'an commands us. Ask the experts of Scripture if you don't know. Now this is where the enemies of Islam come into the picture. These revisionists and polemicists, whoever they are, atheists, agnostics, some of them are Christian, they've taken notice of the average Muslim's ignorance of his own traditional literature and his claim of textual uniformity, and so they, the critics, they dip into our traditional literature, and they pull out isolated narratives that debunk the claim of textual uniformity, a claim that no real Muslim scholar ever made, and then they deceptively present these isolated opinions, or narrations I should say, to their audiences as evidence that the Qur'an is not preserved. But what the critics don't tell their audiences is that traditional Muslim authorities have always believed that the Qur'an was revealed in a multi-formic fashion, and that this has nothing to do with the Qur'an's preservation. All traditional authorities maintain that the Qur'an was preserved in light of its multi-formic nature. In other words, these critics weaponize our own literature against us. They use our own traditional literature to tear down the strawmen that many ignorant Muslims constantly keep creating with their own misguided claims of textual uniformity. So what do I mean when I say the Qur'an is multi-formic? I touched on this a little bit last time as well. It is well established in our tradition that the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, ala sab'ati ahruf, upon seven letters, literally, sometimes translated seven modes or seven types of recitational variations. These ahruf are revelation. They are by design. They're not by accident. Their origin is with the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, not after him. The essential purpose of these ahruf, these variations, is to fold the first is theological. The ahruf enrich our understandings of the Kalamah of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala. By making the Qur'an a multi-formic text, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala opened up different meanings for us. We are enriched intellectually and spiritually by the ahruf. The ahruf give us a deeper engagement with the Kalamah of Allah. I'll give you examples, inshallah. The second purpose is practical. The ahruf are a means of tasir. They make the Qur'an's recitation and memorization easier for us. They give us options. There are multiple correct readings. There is recitational latitude. This is out of the mercy of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala. Again, this is by design, not by accident. The presence of the seven ahruf is something that is adumina dina. This is something that's well-known established in the religion, cannot be denied, and it's not some secret. It's mentioned in numerous hadith across multiple volumes, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, An-Nisa'i, Musnad Ahmad, Mu'at-e-Malik, Musannath, Ibn Abu-Shaybah, etc., etc. Over 20 companions mentioned this on our hadith corpus. It is Mu'ta-Allah to love thee. It is mass-transmitted and it's very wording. Just one hadith, Imam Ahmad reports the famous hadith, the dispute between Umar and Hisham. So Umar and Hisham, Ibn-u-Hakeem, radiallahu anhu maa, they each read the same verse of Surat-ul-Furqan, and they read it differently. They went to the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi sallam. In fact, the hadith says that Saydina Umar dragged Hisham to the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi sallam. So you see the Muslims from the very, very beginning were very, very intent on getting the Qur'an exactly right and investigating readings that were questionable. The Prophet asked Umar to recite. So Umar recited and then the Prophet said Haqadah-un-Zilat, like this that was revealed. And then the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi sallam asked Hisham to recite. So he recited and then the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi sallam said Haqadah-un-Zilat. Thus it was revealed. But then concluded by clarifying, Inna haathal Qur'an-un-Zilat ala sab'at-i-ahruf, faqar-u-Mat-i-as-sara. Indeed the Qur'an was revealed in seven Ahruf. So read what is easy for you. And I'll give you specific examples in a minute inshallah. But if we don't know these things, that's on us, we need to fix ourselves. Our ignorance has opened the door for our enemies to deceive and beguile us. They're like sharks who smell blood in the water. Let us obey the command of Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta'ala when He says, Afalaya tattabbaruna al-Quran. Do they not deeply reflect about the Qur'an? Do they not ponder with profundity about the Qur'an? So we need to ask ourselves, are we doing this? Are we engaging with the Qalam of Allah at a deep level? Are we studying these ulum, these disciplines that are essential to understanding the Qur'an and fortifying our iman? We don't have to be ulama, but we have to know something. We have to know something. We have to be able to hold our own. Ignorance will not do. The Prophet ﷺ said, Al-Quran al-Hujjatul laka'u alaik. Or as he said, the Qur'an will be a proof for you or against you. And Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, radiallahu anhu said that this refers to the Yom al-Qiyamah. He said, salallahu alayhi sallim khayru kumman ta'alama al-Quran wa'alama. The best of you are those who learn the Qur'an and teach others. Are you engaging the Qur'an? Or do you find yourself inching farther and farther away from the Qur'an? Becoming more and more estranged from the Qur'an because you stumbled across some video on the internet of some profligate apostate or some bitter unbeliever or atheist who thinks that he has the Qur'an all figured out and he's caused you to doubt Allah and His Messenger. So be forewarned about such people. Do not befriend such people. Do not incline towards such people. Even if they come to you with smiles and giggles, listen to the words of Allah Allah says, The true sovereignty on that day, the day of judgment, will belong to the most compassionate Allah, and that will be a difficult day for the unbelievers. On that day, the wrongdoer will bite his hands. This is an expression of regret saying, Oh woe unto me, what that I had taken a path with the Messenger, Ibn Kathir, Imam al-Qurtubi and many, many others. They mentioned that the immediate occasion of this verses revelation was a man who was misled by his so-called friend away from Islam and away from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. A man in Mecca from the Quraysh who was going to take a path, a sabil, with the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. The sabil is al-Islam. He was going to become a Muslim or he had become Muslim and his so-called friend talked him out of it. And on that day the Qur'an says the wrongdoer, this man, will bite at his hands and say, Oh woe unto me, I wish I had taken a path with the Messenger, Oh woe unto me, I should not have taken so and so as a friend. Fulan means so and so in Arabic. According to the tafsir, this friend was a mushrik and a mustahazi named Ubey ibn Khalaf but he's not named here in the ayah because there are people like him in every generation. In other words, Ubey is just an archetype who manifests throughout history as different people. The Qur'an is teaching us a universal lesson. The man who was misled by his so-called friend continued speaking in the Qur'an. Laqad al-galna ni'ani dhikri ba'adi idhjaani wa kana shaitan ulil insani khadula. Indeed he caused me to go astray after the dhikr, after the Qur'an has reached me. And I let it slip through my fingers. Indeed Satan is a forsaker of man. Laqad al-rasood, Ya Rabbi innakaw mittakhadu haathal Qur'an amahjura. And the Messenger will say, Oh my Lord, my people have deserted and abandoned this Qur'an. This is what happened. A believer entertained the rantings of an anti-Muslim polemicist, an obstinate degenerate and that degenerate caused the believer to abandon the Qur'an and leave Allah on his Messenger. And on the Day of Judgment the former believer will have no one to blame by himself because he should have sought out the truth about the Qur'an. He should have sought out the experts and masters of the Qur'an. He should have heard both sides of the issues. One of the names of the Day of Judgment in the Qur'an is Yom al-Hassra, the Day of Regret, the Day of Ya-Laitani, the Day of Ya-Wailata, the Day of Oh I should have, the Day of Oh if only I had, the Day of Ah, what was I thinking? May Allah SWT save us from such regret and warn them Yom al-Hassra and warn them of the Day of Regret when the matter will be settled yet they are in oblivion and they do not believe. Our faith in Allah and his Messenger is not blind. It's not without evidence. Our faith, our conviction is based upon and fortified by knowledge. If the foundations and fortifications of the fortress of our convictions are weak then sheytan will send his minions to attack us and they will win. They will tear down the walls and rip up the floor of our fortress. In the Qur'an, what was the first piece of advice that Luqman al-Hakeem, Luqman the sage, Luqman the wise gave to his son. He said, Ya'bunaya, la tu shrik bil la, inna shirkala ghulamun azeem. Oh my dear son, do not associate with Allah SWT. It is the gravest of wrongdoing. Now how many times in the Qur'an do we find Allah SWT commanding us to obey our parents, to be grateful to our parents, to honor our parents. This is a sustained command in the Qur'an in Sunnah. Wa qadarabbuka alla ta'budu illa iyahu wa bil walidani ihsanah. God and parents, God and parents. Yet Allah SWT says, wa injahadaka ala an tu shrikabi ma leisa lakabihi ilm fa la tuti'ahuma wa sahibhum afid dunya ma'rufa. But if they, your parents, strive to make you associate with me what you have no knowledge of, then do not obey them. But keep their company in this world with courtesy. Don't just obey somebody in religious matters, even if it's your parents without knowledge, let alone some bitter internet troll who's seeking popularity and wealth. There is no taqlid in Aqidah. You have to know what you're worshiping. Our knowledge of Allah and his messenger in his book must be discursive to a certain extent. In other words, we have to be able to explain why we believe that the Qur'an is the word of God. Again, we don't have to be Ulama, but we have to know something. We have to be able to hold our own. Wallahu mustaan. The Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam he said faqihun wahidun ashaddu ala shaitan min alfi'abid. A single jurist, a single faqih. And here it is likely that faqih means any Muslim with a profound understanding of the religion, not technically a trained jurist in the early literature to have knowledge of fiqh meant to have a deep understanding of the religion. A single faqih, a single Muslim who has a deep knowledge of the deen is more severe on Satan than 1,000 ignorant worshipers. Now the Qur'an is preserved according to the Qur'an itself, but can this claim be substantiated by evidence? Or is this just a circular argument? The short answer is absolutely. It is substantiated by evidence. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala commands the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam in the Qur'an. Say, this is my path, my deen. I call to it with clear sight. The Qur'an is Imam al-Qurtubi. A la basira means ala yakin wa haqh with certitude and truth. Ibn Kathir says yakin and burhan, certitude and evidence. This is my religion. I call you to Allah based upon evidence and evidence must be sought. So what is the external evidence of the Qur'an in the first century of the hijrah of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam? In other words, what percentage of the Qur'an is attested in manuscripts, physical manuscripts, that are dated to the first century Hijri? So I'm not talking about Sira. I'm talking about the Qur'an, our primary text, perhaps a comparison with the New Testament will help put things into perspective. Now Jesus, peace be upon him, was speaking and teaching the Gospel in the late 20s and early 30s of the first century of the common era. So how much of the 27 book canon of the New Testament is attested in extant manuscript witnesses that are dated to the first century CE? What percentage of New Testament manuscripts that we have today are dated to the first century CE, the century of Isa alayhi sallam? The answer is zero percent, literally zero. There is nothing from the first century of Christianity. What about the Qur'an? There are over two dozen confirmed first century Hijri that is 7th century CE manuscripts of the Qur'an extant right now and many others waiting to be identified and this number is only going to increase as more manuscripts await to be analyzed with their paleography and orthography and radiocarbon dating. So how much of the Qur'an is attested in manuscript witnesses from the first century Hijri? The answer is the entirety of the Qur'an. We have 100% of the Qur'an in extant manuscript witnesses from the first Islamic century before 700 of the common era. This is a fact. It's time for these radical historical revisionists and highly bitter Christian polemicists to simply come to terms with this. Now I want to explain, I only have a few minutes left, the multiformic aspect of the Qur'an that I referenced earlier. This is a manifestation of the beauty, the magnificence and utter uniqueness of the Qur'an. There's nothing like the Qur'an. Let's start with the classic example again. In al-Fatiha, Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala Maliki yawmidin and Maliki yawmidin. We talked about this last time. Allah is both owner and king of the day of judgment. But what's the difference? You see a king may rule and set laws over a kingdom, but he may not necessarily own anything. An owner may own something but may not necessarily rule over anything. Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala is both owner and king. He rules and owns everything. These variants complement each other. And the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam recited it both ways. How do we know this? How do we know that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam recited it both ways? I mean, we've known this for 1,400 years. But the radical skeptic will say, how do you know he recited it both ways? This just seems like Muslims are trying to cover up a discrepancy in their book. This can be answered using common sense. We don't need to rattle off as I need, chains of transmission for this. The Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam recited it both ways is as factual as saying, Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the United States. Or Caesar Augustus was the first Roman emperor. People can question these things if they want and there are always people who are going to question these things. But let's ask a basic question. How many times did the companions hear the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam recite Al-Fatiha? Let's think about this. The five daily prayers were mandated in the eighth year of the Meccan period. Al-Fatiha must be recited in every prayer cycle. Everybody knows this. So the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam led the Sahaba in prayer for 15 years, 15 times 354 the lunar year comes out to 5,310 days. Actually did the math on this. Three of the daily prayers are audible in their first two cycles, Fajr, Maghrib and Isha. So they would have heard the Fatiha six times a day from the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. So 5,310 days times six recitations a day is nearly 32,000 recitations of Al-Fatiha. The Sahaba heard the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam recite Al-Fatiha 32,000 times over the course of 15 years. And this is not counting the times the Prophet recited Al-Fatiha in Sulaatul Juma or Sulaatul Eid or outside of prayer and conversations and lectures and sermons. Did the Sahaba really get this wrong? Was there really a difference of opinion as to whether the Prophet said Maliki Yomedin or Maliki Yomedin? Did they really transfer this uncertainty to their students? This is ridiculous. He obviously recited it both ways. The Quran was and continues to be a mass transmitted living tradition. It was constantly heard, recited and memorized every day since its inception by dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of people. Imam al-Siyuti quoted Zaid Ibn Thabud who said Al-Qira'ah sunnah, recitation is sunnah. In other words, it is from the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. All of this is Talaqee, the recitation of the Quran was passed down verbatim from teacher to student, teacher to student until it reached us. In our contention, that recitation is inherited, is supported when we look at other verses in the Quran. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says, Qulillahumma malika al-mulkitu adil mulkimantaja All ten kananak al-Qura'ah said, Malika al-mulkir, it's unanimous. Why? Why didn't the six Qura'ah who read Maliki Yomedin and al-Fatiha read this as Malik al-mulk? The meaning is sound, it's contextually valid and it's incorrect Arabic. Why didn't anyone choose this reading? It seems to me that they did not have that choice. They were not authorized to read this word in this verse as Malik. There is no recitational latitude in this verse. Why? What makes sense? It makes perfect sense that the Qura'ah were constrained by the living oral transmission of the Quran. They handed down recitational tradition of the Quran. They were constrained by the sunnah of Qura'ah. Let's look at another example of how the multi-form texts of the Quran enriches our understandings of our theological convictions. In Surat Maryam, verse number 34, Allah SWT says, This is how Ibn Amr and Asim and Yaqub read this verse. These are three of the 10 eponymous and canonical reading traditions. This vowing of the texts was taught to them by their teachers. It is talaqee through transmission, through naqal. The word qawl here is in the accusative, qawl al-haq, meaning the aforementioned statements about Isa al-Salam is the true account, the Christological teaching found in the preceding ayat presents the true Isa al-Salam. Name me qalaini abdullahi a'atani al-kitab wa ja'alain al-abiyyah that Jesus, peace be upon him, is a slave of Allah and his prophet who received revelation. He's not the son of God. Wa ja'alani mubarakan aina ma kuntu wa awsani bi salati wa zakati mad-dumtu haiyyah that Jesus is mubarak, he's blessed, he's not mal'un, he's not accursed, as Paul says in the New Testament in Galatians. He was not a deceiver or a blasphemer as the Talmud says, wa parran bi waridati wa lam yaj'ali jabbaran shakiyyah he was kind to his mother and he was not arrogant or defiant wa salamu alayya yawmu ulittu wa yawmu amutu wa yawmu uba'athu haiyyah the salam of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is upon Isa al-Salam throughout his life. That iqa Isa ibn Maryam qawl al-haqil ladhi fihi amtarun such was Jesus a son of Mary. It is the word, the qawla of truth about which they are vainly disputing. Now this verse is also read. Iqa Isa ibn Maryam qawl al-haqil ladhi fihi amtarun with qawl in the nominative. This is a reading of the seven other eponymous and canonical reading traditions, including Nafir. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam recited it both ways. This difference is by design, not by accident. This enriches our understanding. So now the verse means such was Jesus the son of Mary. He is the word of truth about which they are vainly disputing that Isa al-Salam is the word of al-haq, the word of Allah which is an honorific title. It's takrimi as Imam al-Razi says. If someone is known for their generosity, we can say he's generosity itself. That Jesus peace be upon him was totally truthful in his speech. Why? Because all of his speech was wahi, was revelation. He only spoke the words of God. Therefore he's called the word of God as a way of honoring and praising him. Why does the Quran praise him in such a way and emphasize his truthfulness? Probably because the New Testament ascribes to Jesus false prophecies. That is to say falsifiable predictions and blasphemy while the Talmud describes to him deception and sorcery. So in this honorific way, Isa al-Salam is the word of God. Not in the Neoplatonic or Trinitarian sense where he's the pre-eternal logo so emanated from the very being of an ontologically or hypostatically superior deity. The Quran says, This is negating illa and ma'luliyah. In other words, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala did not cause or beget a person or son from his own being in pre-eternality nor was Allah an effect of any logically prior cause. So we see how the qaraat which are derived from the ahruf, you see how they enrich the meanings of the ayat. This is an aspect of the uniqueness of the Quran. I think I'm out of time. Insha'Allah ta'ala. We'll continue next time. Insha'Allah ta'ala. We'll say this. I ask forgiveness from Allah. I ask forgiveness from Allah. He is the Most Forgiving, the Most Merciful. Tubu ila Allah. Ya Tawab, Tub'alina.