Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Codexs of the New Testament




1)  Codex Vaticanus-  “The Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209; Gregory-Aland no. B or 03) is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Bible. It is slightly older than Codex Sinaiticus, both of which were probably transcribed in the 4th century. It is written in Greek, on vellum, with uncial letters.”

 Contents of Codex Vaticanus:  “Vaticanus originally contained a complete copy of the Septuagint ("LXX") except for 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of ManassehGenesis 1:1 - 46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27 - 137:6b (10 leaves) are lost and have been filled by a recent hand. 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13 are also lost due to a tear in one of the pages. The order of the Old Testament books is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles as normal, 1 Esdras2 Esdras (which includes Nehemias), the PsalmsProverbsEcclesiastesSong of SongsJobWisdomEcclesiasticusEstherJudithTobit, the minor prophets from Hosea to MalachiIsaiahJeremiah,BaruchLamentations and the Epistle of JeremiahEzekiel and Daniel.
The extant New Testament of Vaticanus contains the GospelsActs, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Heb 9:14, καθα[ριει); thus it lacks 1 and 2 TimothyTitusPhilemon andRevelation. These missing pages were replaced by a 15th century minuscule supplement (no. 1957).
The Greek is written continuously with small neat writing, later retraced by an 11th century scribe. Punctuation is rare (accents and breathings have been added by a later hand) except for some blank spaces, diaeresison initial iotas and upsilons, abbreviations of the nomina sacra and markings of OT citations.
The manuscript contains mysterious double dots (so called "umlauts") in the margin of the New Testament, which seem to mark places of textual uncertainty. There are 795 of these in the text and around another 40 that are uncertain.”

Codex Vaticanus discovery and origin:  “The manuscript has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in its earliest catalog of 1475 and in the 1481 catalogue. Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain, with Rome, southern Italy and Caesarea all having been suggested. There has been speculation that it had previously been in the possession of Cardinal Bessarion because the minuscule supplement has a text similar to one of Bessarion's manuscripts. According to Paul Canart's introduction to the recent facsimile edition, p.5, the decorative initials added to the manuscript in the middle ages are reminiscent of Constantinopolitan decoration of the 10th century, but poorly executed, giving the impression that they were added in the 11th or 12 century. T C Skeat, apaleographer at the British Museum, has argued that Codex Vaticanus was among the 50 Bibles that the Emperor Constantine I ordered Eusebius of Caesarea to produce. The similarity of the text with the papyri and Coptic version (including some letter formation), parallels with Athanasius' canon of 367 suggest an Egyptian or Alexandrian origin.” 


More Codex Vaticanus information:  “Codex Vaticanus is one of the most important manuscripts for Textual criticism and is a leading member of the Alexandrian text-type. It was heavily used by Westcott and Hort in their edition of the Greek New Testament (1881).”

Notice Codex Vaticanus is from the 4th century (HUNDREDS of years after Jesus’ disappearance) and is ALL in the Greek language, Jesus (PBUH) did NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of Aramaic.
Note to the Reader:  “The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek. But in the time of Jesus, the Roman Empire had not become divided into two halves. The center of the Empire was stillRome. The Roman and Greek languages are very difficult. If Roman influence had at all penetrated Jewish life, it should have resulted in the assimilation of Latin (and not Greek) words into the Hebrew language. Yet the oldest manuscripts of the Gospels are all in Greek. This proves that the Gospels were written down at a time when the Roman Empire had become divided and its eastern possession had become part of the Greek Empire, so that the Greek language had begun to exert its influence on Christianity and its literature. (From:  http://www.usislam.org/christianity/greekhebrew.htm)”  Note Aramaic is VERY similar to Hebrew.
The Roman Empire was NOT spilt into the Western and Eastern Empire till 395 CE following the death of Theodosius I.  In 395 CE the Eastern Roman Empire (more commonly called the Byzantine Empire began).  TheRoman Empire’s official language was Latin and mainly only Romans in the Arts and Literature could speak and use Greek.

2)  Codex Sinaiticus-  Codex Sinaiticus (London, Brit. Libr., Add. 43725; Gregory-Aland no. א (Aleph) or 01) is a 4th century uncial manuscript of the Greek Bible, written between 330–350. Originally containing the whole of both Testaments, only portions of the Greek Old Testament or Septuagint survive along with a complete New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas (suggesting that the latter two may have been considered part of Biblical canon by the editors of the codex). Along with Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most valuable manuscripts for Textual criticism of the Greek New Testament, as well as the Septuagint. (From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus)”  Again in Greek, Jesus (PBUH) did NOT speak Greek he spoke Aramaic.

Contents of Codex Sinaiticus:  “Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf on his third visit to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, on Mount Sinai in Egypt, in 1859. The first two trips had yielded parts of the Old Testament, some found in a basket of manuscript pieces, which Tischendorf was told by a librarian that "they were rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery".[2] The emperorAlexander II of Russia sent him to search for manuscripts, which he was convinced were still to be found in the Sinai monastery. In May 1975 during restoration work, the monks of St. Catherine's monastery at Sinai discovered a room under the St. George chapel which contained many parchment fragments. Among these fragments, twelve missing leaves from the Sinaiticus Old Testament were found.
The story of how von Tischendorf found the manuscript, which contained most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament, has all the interest of a romance. Von Tischendorf reached the monastery on January 31; but his inquiries appeared to be fruitless. On February 4, he had resolved to return home without having gained his object.
On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.[3]
After some negotiations, he obtained possession of this precious fragment, and conveyed it to Emperor Alexander, who fully appreciated its importance, and caused it to be published as nearly as possible in facsimile, so as to exhibit correctly the ancient handwriting. However, the tsar sent 9000 roubles to the monastery as a compensation.
Regarding Tischendorf's role in the transfer to Saint Petersburg, there are several views. Although when parts of Genesis and Book of Numbers were later found in the binding of other books, they were amicably sent to Tischendorf, the Codex is currently regarded by the monastery as having been stolen, a view hotly contested by several scholars in Europe. In a more neutral spirit, New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger writes: "Certain aspects of the negotiations leading to the transfer of the codex to the Czar's possession are open to an interpretation that reflects adversely on Tischendorf's candour and good faith with the monks at St. Catherine's. For a recent account intended to exculpate him of blame, see Erhard Lauch's article 'Nichts gegen Tischendorf' in Bekenntnis zur Kirche: Festgabe für Ernst Sommerlath zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin, c. 1961); for an account that includes a hitherto unknown receipt given by Tischendorf to the authorities at the monastery promising to return the manuscript from St. Petersburg 'to the Holy Confraternity of Sinai at its earliest request'.[4]
For many decades, it was preserved in the Russian National Library. In 1933, the Soviet Union sold the Codex to the British Library for £100,000.

3)  Codex Alexandrinus-  “The Codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, MS Royal 1. D. V-VIII; Gregory-Aland no. A or 02) is a 5th century manuscript of the Greek Bible, containing the majority of theSeptuagint and the New Testament. Along with the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. It derives its name from Alexandria where it resided for a number of years before given to the British in the 17th century.” 

Notice Codex Alexandrinus is from the 5th century again HUNDREDS of years after the disappearance of Jesus (PBUH) and again Codex Alexandrinus is ALL in Greek, Jesus (PBUH) did NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of ARAMAIC.

Contents of Codex Alexandrinus:  “The text in the codex is written in two columns in uncial script, with between 46 and 52 lines per column and 20 to 25 letters per line. The beginning lines of each book are written in red ink and sections within the book are marked by a larger letter set into the margin. Words are written continuously in a large square uncial hand with no accents and only some breathings (possibly added by a later editor).
It contains a complete copy of the LXX, including the deuterocanonical books 3 and 4 MaccabeesPsalm 151 and the 14 Odes. The "Epistle to Marcellinus" attributed to Saint Athanasius and the Eusibian summary of the Psalms are inserted before the Book of Psalms.
The codex also contains all of the books of the New Testament, in addition to 1 Clement (lacking 57:7-63) and the homily known as 2 Clement (up to 12:5a).
There is also an appendix marked in the index, which lists the Psalms of Solomon, and probably contained more apocryphal/pseudepigraphical books but has been torn off. The pages containing these books have also been lost.
Due to damage and lost folios, various passages are missing or have defects:
Lacking: 1 Sam 12:18-14:9 (1 leaf); Ps 49:19-79:10 (9 leaves); Matt 1:1-25:6 (26 leaves); John 6:50-8:52 (2 leaves); 2 Cor 4:13-12:6 (3 leaves)
Damaged: Gen 14:14-17, 15:1-5, 15:16-19, 16:6-9 (lower portion of torn leaf lost)
Defects due to torn leaves: Gen 1:20-25, 1:29-2:3, Lev 8:6,7,16; Sirach 50:21f, 51:5
There are 773 vellum folios (630 in the Old Testament and 143 in the New Testament). The manuscript measures 12.6 by 10.4 inches. Most of the folios were originally gathered into quires of 8 leaves each. However, in modern times it was rebound into quires of 6 leaves each. The only decorations in the manuscript are decorative tailpieces at the end of each book (see illustration). It also shows a tendency to increase the size of the first letter of each sentence.”
Again as in the 2 previous Oldest Greek manuscripts notice all the errors, and addition and subtraction of numerous books.  Codex Alexandrius contain the “Epistle of Marcellinus” and in it’s Corrupted New Testament it contents parts of books called “1 Clement” and “2 Clement”.  Then notice ALL the DAMAGES to the books and the “lost folios”.  Again Codex Alexandrinus dated to the 5th century HUNDREDS of years after the disappearance of Jesus (PBUH). Then in addition Codex Alexandrinus is like the other 2 Codex’s ALL in Greek, Jesus (PBUH) DID NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of Aramaic.

More information on Codex Alexandrinus:  “Textual critics have had a challenging task in classifying the Codex, with the exact relationship to other known texts and families still disputed. The gospels are mostly of theByzantine text-type, but there are a number of Alexandrian features; while the corresponding portion of John is a lacuna, scholars posit that the Pericope Adulteræ was not included in the text based on space calculations. For the rest of the New Testament, the text is Alexandrian. However, the text goes from most closely resembling the text of the Codex Sinaiticus in Paul, to more closely resembling the text of a number of papyri (P74 for Acts, P47 for the Apocalypse). The gospels are cited as a "consistently cited witness of the third order" in the critical apparatus of the Novum Testamentum Graece, while the rest of the New Testament is of the “first order”.”

ALL these Codex’s from HUNDREDS of years after Jesus’ disappearance (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century, and Codex Alexandrinus from the 5th century), THEY ALL have errors and inconsistencies, and their ALL in Greek, Jesus (PBUH) did NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of Aramaic.

Aisha's statement of Your Lord hastens in fulfilling your desires.


Aisha's (RA) statement "Lord hastens in fulfilling your desires" explained


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Understanding the reality and meanings of the statement of Sayyidah Aisha –May Allah be pleased with her “I see that your Lord hastens to confirm your desires.” The issue is explained through literary analysis of the words used and in the light of the contextual significance along with other related proofs.

1. Introduction

There are numerous people and groups who harbor a disliking for Islamic personalities while there are some who have taken it as the ultimate mission of their life to hate and preach hatred. The claim addressed here is one such example.

Even though the Qur’an defends Aisha [1] –may Allah be pleased with her, from a heinous allegation leveled by the enemies of Islam,  the hate preachers do not desist from this practice thereby enrolling themselves in the list of enemies of Islam.

We find a statement from Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- as follows:

"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."[2]

2. The baseless allegation

Based on this statement, the hate preachers reach at a few unfounded conclusions. Those in the guise of Muslims claim that this statement denotes disbelief in revelation by the pious mother of the believers whereas other groups state that they understand it to mean that Prophet Muhammad -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- made up revelations and the people around him doubted his prophethood. Analyzing the statement within context and looking properly at the bigger picture reveals that the allegations are baseless as proven in this article.

3. The full narration

Narrated Aisha: I used to be jealous of those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes." [3]

4. Inclinations/Wishes/Choices or desires?

Before the narration is analyzed, the word for ‘wishes’ needs to be understood in its proper meaning. The word هوى  has been used in the Qur’an as well:
فلا تتبعوا الهوى
"So follow not [personal] inclination ..." [4]

The word has been repeated several times in the Qur’an and among a number of meanings, carries the meaning of an innocent wish, likeness or preference for any consideration, personal opinion or likeness for a particular opinion when other opinions are more valid and strong. We find in Saheeh Bukhari:

Narrated Ibrahim bin Sad from his father from his grand-father: Abdur Rahman bin Auf said,"When we came to Medina as emigrants, Allah's Apostle established a bond of brotherhood between me and Sad bin Ar-Rabi'. Sad bin Ar-Rabi' said (to me), 'I am the richest among the Ansar, so I will give you half of my wealth and you may look at my two wives and whichever of the two you may choose (هوى - hawa) I will divorce her, and when she has completed the prescribed period (before marriage) you may marry her.' Abdur-Rahman replied, "I am not in need of all that. Is there any market-place where trade is practiced?'[5]

Furthermore, Ibn Rajab writes:

قالت عائشة للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ما أرى ربك إلا يسارع في هواك . وقال عمر في قصة المشاورة في أسارى بدرفهوى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما قال أبو بكر ، ولم يهو ما قلت ، وهذا الحديث مما جاء في استعمال الهوى بمعنىالمحبة المحمودة ، وقد وقع مثل ذلك في الآثار الإسرائيلية كثيرا ، وكلام مشايخ القوم وإشاراتهم نظما ونثرا يكثر في هذاالاستعمال ، ومما يناسب معنى الحديث من ذلك قول بعضهم : 
إن هواك الذي بقلبي
  
صيرني سامعا مطيعا
     
أخذت قلبي وغمض عيني
سلبتني النوم والهجوعا
    
فذر فؤادي وخذ رقادي
فقال لا بل هما جميعا

'Aishah said to the Prophet (peace be upon him) commenting on this verse (i.e. 33:51), "I see that Allah fulfills your inclinations."

Commenting on the Prophet's (peace be upon him) consultation with his Companions regarding the captives of Badr, 'Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "The Prophet (peace be upon him) inclined (hawiya) to Abu Bakr's opinion and he did not incline (lam yahwa) to what I said." With such a connotation of good/innocent inclination, the term has been used in the Reports of the People of the Book and also frequently in the poetry and prose of the Pious Predecessors. From what relates to the Hadith are the words;

 "Your inclination (hawaka) in my heart made me to listen to You and obey You. You have my heart and I was deprived from sleeping.
Leave my heart and let me sleep.
Yet, He said: I will take both."
[6]

The Prophet - on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- did not take her statement as an insult or criticism as he did not react to it. If this had been a real insult, as the opponents of Islam claim, then the Prophet –peace be upon him- would have considered this as a blasphemy and, at worst, declared her renegade or, at best, given her sincere advice and guidance so she may repent. However, nothing of this sort happened indicating clearly that this was a casual discussion between a husband and wife.
Therefore, if someone understands the statement of Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- to allege lust or passion, then there appears to be no cure for such ignorance.

5. The background to the statement

"Imam Ahmad recorded that A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, used to feel jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Prophet. She said, "Would a woman not feel shy to offer herself without any dowry!'' Then Allah revealed the verse, (You can postpone whom you will of them, and you may receive whom you will.)
She said, "I think that your Lord is hastening to confirm your desire.''
“And whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside, it is no sin on you (to receive her again)”. Others said that what is meant by: (You can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them),
means, `your wives: there is no sin on you if you stop dividing your time equally between them, and delay the turn of one of them and bring forward the turn of another as you wish, and you have intercourse with one and not another as you wish.' This was narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Abu Razin, Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam and others.[7]

6. Natural spousal jealousy

As has been stated earlier that the pious mother of the believers, Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- had a natural jealousy that all women have. This matter should be sufficient for any rational person. A private matter and discussion between a husband and wife that meant nothing more than that to themselves should not be taken up by others to justify hidden motives in the first place. It was his wife who had said this and that is the bottom line. The Prophet -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- is loved, honored and respected by all Muslims who would definitely not speak about him in such words but the statement came from his wife and hence the same yardstick does not apply. He used to be frank and informal with his wives and likewise, they were with him. The simple and only conclusion is that there was certainly no disrespect but only frankness and natural spousal jealousy. Had it been an angry or insulting statement, she would have not narrated it to others. Besides, there are further evidences that she did not speak in an angry tone.

7. An ordinary matter between spouses without any real ill-feelings

Narrated Aisha:
That Allah's Messenger said to her, "I know whether you are pleased with me or angry with me." I said, "Whence do you know that?" He said, "When you are pleased with me, you say, 'No, by the Lord of Muhammad,' but when you are angry with me, then you say, 'No, by the Lord of Ibrahim.' "Thereupon I said, "Yes (you are right), but by Allah, O Allah's Messenger, I leave nothing but your name." [8]

The Prophet -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah, as a husband, understood his wife and he knew whether she was angry or not. When she had spoken the words, she used the words “I feel that your Lord” instead of saying the Lord of Ibrahim or any other such words indicating that hers was a casual discussion with her husband.

8. Fulfillment of desires?

Even after the verse was revealed, Prophet Muhammad -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- used to divide his time equally as mentioned by the pious mother of the believers herself:

‘Aisha said: "O my nephew, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him) did not prefer one of us to other in respect of his division of time of his staying with us. It was very rare that he did not visit any of us any day. He would come near each of his wives without having any intercourse with her until he reached the one who had her day (i.e. her turn) and passed his night with her...." [9]

Furthermore, Ibn Kathir states:

Nevertheless, the Prophet used to divide his time between them equally, hence a group of the scholars of Fiqh among the Shafi`is and others said that equal division of time was not obligatory for him and they used this Ayah as their evidence.[10]

Maulana Maududi writes:

This verse was meant to relieve the Holy Prophet of the domestic worries and anxieties so that he could carry out his duties with full peace of mind. When Allah clearly gave hire the power and the authority to treat any of his wives as he liked, there remained no chance that those believing ladies would trouble him in any way, or would create complications for him by their mutual rivalries and domestic squabbles. But in spite of having this authority from Allah the Honorable Prophet meted out full justice to his wives. He did not prefer one to the other and would visit each of them regularly by turns. Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa'i, Abu Da'ud and others have reported on the authority of 'A'ishah that even after the revelation of this verse the Honorable Prophet's practice was that whenever he wanted to visit any of us, his wives, on the turn of another wife, he would first ask her permission for it. Abu Bakr al-Jassas relates from 'Urwah bin Zubair that Hadrat 'A'ishah told him, "As to our rants the Honorable Prophet never preferred any of us to the other, although it seldom happened that he did not visit all his wives on the same day, but he never touched a wife unless it was her day by turn." And this also is a tradition from 'A'ishah that during his last illness when it became difficult for him to move about he asked for his other wives' permission to stay with her, and only on their approval he passed his last days in her apartment. Ibn Abi Hatim has cited this from Imam Zuhri that the Honorable Prophet is not known to have deprived any of his wives of her turn.[11]

Another point that is important here is the fact that revelation did not always make things what ‘we may call’ ‘easy’ or ‘favorable’. For example, the Prophet –peace be upon him- was not allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women [12] and was commanded to pray the night prayer[13] which he did during the late-night. If he was fabricating revelation at all, then surely these difficulties and restrictions would not have been imposed on him by himself. This order coupled with strict implementation is rather evidence that he was not the originator of the Qur’an but the Messenger of Allah.

Another example of ‘unfavorable revelation’ is as follows:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Whenever a meal was brought to Allah's Apostle, he would ask whether it was a gift or Sadaqa (something given in charity). If he was told that it was Sadaqa, he would tell his companions to eat it, but if it was a gift, he would hurry to share it with them.[14]

Prophet Muhammad -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- was not allowed by Allah to take from charity and the believers were forbidden to give him charity. The kind of life that he lived would force a person to accept that the absence of such a kind of revelation would have made life much easier for him as we find in other narrations:

'A'isha reported: Never had the family of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) eaten to the fill since their arrival in Medina with the bread of wheat for three successive nights until his (Holy Prophet's) death.[15]

Nu'man b. Bashir said: Don't you eat and drink according to your heart's desire, whereas Isaw that your prophet (may peace be upon him) (at times) could not find even an inferior quality of the dates with which he could fill his belly?"[16]

Throughout the Muslim history, we find several false claimants to prophethood making things easy for their followers. They removed the things people find difficult such as praying and charity. Even several fake scholars have done the same i.e. turned the Islamic teachings into metaphors and giving to the people what they want to hear. However, the apparent difficult orders of the Qur’an for the Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- are a strong proof of the truthfulness of the Qur’an and the Messenger.

Another example of revelation which can be considered difficult for the Prophet -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- was the Qibla used. The change of Qibla from the sacred Masjid to the Noble Ka’abah in Makkah did not happen when he was in Makkah and which would have suited him as well but happened in Madina when the change of Qibla was disliked, criticized and ridiculed by the disbelievers and hypocrites.

Allah chooses the best of the people to be His Messengers. What the Messenger teach is the Message from the Creator. Hence if the Creator mentions that He chose the best from mankind to convey His Message, then who would be unwise enough to allege self-praise? Prophet Muhammad -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- was the representative of Allah on earth and all laws had to come through him alone and therefore not making an issue of extra responsibility on the Messenger of Allah and making an issue of some concessions appears to be an unwise thing to do.

-- by Adeel Tariq Khan 


[1] Qur’an 24:11-26
[2] Saheeh Bukhari, book 60, Hadith 311
[3] ibid.
[4] Qur’an 4:135
[5] Saheeh Bukhari, book 34, Hadith 264
[6] Jami' Al-'Ulum wal-Hikam , Al-Resalah Publications, Beirut, 2001 vol.2 p.399
[8] Saheeh Bukhari book 62, Hadith 155
[9] Sunan Abu Dawud Hadith 2135
[11] Tafhim ul Qur'an: Surah Al-Ahzab
[12] Qur’an 33:50-52
[13] Qur’an 17:79
[14] Saheeh Bukhari, book 47, Hadith 750
[15] Saheeh Muslim book 42, Hadith 7083
[16] Saheeh Muslim book 42, Hadith 7099