New evidence for Quranic Manuscripts?
ghali
findings. There are now two volumes to the works of Deroche and Noseda
Sources de la tradition manuscrite du texte coranique. I. Le manuscrit
328a de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France has already been printed
while the second Sources de la tradition manuscrite du texte coranique.
II. Le manuscrit ar. 2165 de la British Library is in print.
There are also some interview with Francois Deroche in French. You can
get bad online translations
There are two parts to the interview 3&4.
Link to the first part
http://oumma.com/article.php3?id_article=1289&var_recherche=deroche
But the interview has three interesting points
1-Only 16 words in the Hijazi manuscripts are
orthograpically different from the standard quran
after the usual considerations!
So much for the many variations cited by Puin! In fact we only have 2
or 3 variations of Puin in print. Nothing really to be excited about.
All the words noted in point are not different, just have abnormally
consistent variations in spelling. Deroche in the Encyclopedia of
Islam mentions that the only variations noted that are outside the
usual muslim literature ( taking into account scribal errors) are
Puin's, yet we have no proof as of yet for this extensive variation. In
fact all the other manuscripts show an understanding contrary to this
view. Maybe Puin is going the same way Luxenberg is going? At least we
are taking his results with a pinch of salt!
2-95% of the Quran is preserved with the Hijazi script ( we are talking
first century)
3- He came to the conclusion after he had clear cut
evidence of Ummayyad Qurans!
The Hijazi script that is noted ie with the preservation of 95% of the
Quran, has been dated from the mid to the end of the first century
after Hijra! This is no doubt a paleographical issue, but it is
dependent on dated secular scripts at that time. It is also more
"primitive" than the dated ( some carbon dated) Ummayad Qurans.
Remember their reign ended about 750 AC. The Quran was standardised by
Uthman in about 652 AC and our prophet died in 632 A.C.
I am puzzled here. What we have here is 95% preservation of the script
in the first century after Hijra yet according to Wansborough and co.
it only reached its final form at the end of the second century?
Who do we trust foremost authorities in the study of Quranic
manuscripts, or the Jack of all trades Patricia Crone et al ( After all
she is not a specialist in this field) ?
In fact we have many of the repeated themes in this collection of
manuscripts. So does this not undercut what is left of Wansborugh?
Ghali
klei...@astound.net
ghali wrote:
>
> Le manuscrit
> 328a de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France has already been printed
> while le manuscrit ar. 2165 de la British Library is in print.
<omitted>
> Only 16 words in the Hijazi manuscripts are orthograpically different from the standard
> quran after the usual considerations!
By "the Hijazi manuscripts" do you mean the two manuscripts that have
been printed? Are there still more Hijazi manuscripts to come? By
"Hijazi" do you mean all non-Kufic manuscripts or just a particular
subset? I gather I am going have to look at the books to understand
exactly what "the usual considerations" are when "orthographically
different" is being discussed.
But it is obvious that if these two old manuscripts have the usual set
of surats in the usual order, even with hundreds of orthographic
differences, then they were written after the Qur'an was canonized.
If we could date either manuscript, then we would have a date about
which we can state that the Qur'an was canonized before that date. I
gather we are reduced to paleographic evidence. Paleography is so
specialized a matter that an outdsider like me cannot even comment
meaningfully. But I would have to see what the opinions of many
paleographers were before I would accept any date.
> So much for the many variations cited by Puin!
The variations cited by Puin are either much older than these
manuscripts or they are from a tradition that did not accept the
canonization. I have not seen enough of Puin's material to have an
opinion.
> 95% of the Quran is preserved with the Hijazi script.
What 5% is missing?
> He came to the conclusion after he had clear cut
> evidence of Ummayyad Qurans!
This is getting a little circular. If the manuscripts are Ummayyad they
were copied before
AH 132 and if they were copied before AH 132 they are Ummayyad. As
noted before, the
date the manuscripts were copied is what matters. Dynasty is
irrelevant.
> The Hijazi script has been dated from the mid to the end of the first century
> after Hijra!
We have almost nothing dated from before the end of the first century
and very little before the end of the second century. This is not an
easy paleographic problem
> What we have here is 95% preservation of the script
> in the first century after Hijra yet according to Wansborough and co.
> it only reached its final form at the end of the second century?
You don't mean "preservation of the script". You mean "We have
manuscripts from the first century which contain 95% of the canonical
Qur'an". Obviously Wansborough did not believe that there were any
copies on the canonical Qur'an earlier than the very end of the second
century. If there are some (the two being discussed and perhaps others)
then Wansborough was wrong. If there are none (the paleographic dating
being too vague) then Wansborough was right - there is no evidence for
canonization of Qur'an before the end of the second century.
Keep in mind that by canonization Wansborough is not referring to an
error-free transmission of the text but to the gathering together of
all the material that is now in the Qur'an into one more-or-less
standard set of surats in the standard order. He was well aware that
some of the text of the Qur'an was circulating at least as long ago as
when the Dome of the Rock was built. All of the surats might well have
been written down in separate booklets before AH 10. Canonization means
the formation of the standard collection (including rejection of some
material that generally had been accepted - like the surat about the
Camel).
The date of all the old manuscripts need to be estimated (if a
manuscript is actually dated that is delightful, provided we can be
assured that the date is authentic). I am not sanguine about us ever
reaching any consensus about the Hijazi manuscripts.
If either or both of these manuscripts are agreed to date from Umayyad
times then most of what Wansborough speculated about was wasted effort.
If they are post-Umayyad much of what he discussed is still relevant
even though the cutoff date must be pulled back. Almost nothing in his
arguments depends on the Qur'an being canonized in AH 200 instead of
around AH 150 or anytime thereafter.
Thank You for bringing these publications to our attention.
Denis Giron
ghali wrote:
> ...
Greetings Ghali.
A quick reply, mostly just questions (and I promise to get back to the
Trinity thread in the near future).
> the only variations noted that are outside the
> usual muslim literature ( taking into account scribal errors) are
> Puin's, yet we have no proof as of yet for this extensive variation.
Is this in reference to Puin's writing on the Qur'anic manuscripts from
Sana'a? If so, this is an interesting point. By no proof, do you mean
no one (other than Puin and his cohort) have been able to examine the
manuscripts? I ask because I myself have wondered if anyone has
reproduced the manuscripts for public examination, or if we are still
in a position where we have to take Puin's word for it...
On a side note which is possibly not relevant, Puin makes note of an
eight-volume dictionary titled "Mu'jam al-Qira'at al-Qur'aniyyah" in
his contribution to Stefan Wild's "The Qur'an as Text" (cf. p. 109). He
seems to be claiming there are many more variant readings
(recitations?) mentioned therein. Have you consulted this source at
all? Is it at all relevant to the discussion? Just curious.
> I am puzzled here. What we have here is 95% preservation of the script
> in the first century after Hijra yet according to Wansborough and co.
> it only reached its final form at the end of the second century?
Didn't Wansbrough make that claim in the late 70s? Are you demanding
that his work in the 70s be conscious of all developments since,
including developments which postdate his death? It seems like you're
in a polemical mood, and I assume that this is brought on by people
constantly alluding to Wansbrough based on what they read in Warraq.
Perhaps it would be better to simply list the developments made in the
nearly 30 years since Wansbrough's ideas were published so as to help
such people become better informed.
By the way, for the sake of the polemical types you are apparently
responding to (admittedly including a former incarnation of yours
truly), let's employ the following thought experiment: while I don't
know precisely what works of Puin you are referring to (I myself have
only seen his contribution to Wild's book), let us *assume* (just for
the sake of analogy/thought-experiment) that Puin's contribution to
Wild's book (reproduced in one of Warraq's books?) is 100% true. He
lists an extremely small number of variants, and the Sana'a manuscripts
apparently date to well before the final date speculated by Wansbrough
30 years ago. Therefore if you're so hellbent on discrediting the
general date provided by Wansbrough for the completion of the Qur'an,
you could note to the aforementioned "polemical types" that even siding
with Puin's article provides grounds on which to doubt Wansbrough's
date. Your thoughts on this are greatly appreciated.
John Eristu
Thank you for sharing this information.
Once I was talking to a Muslim on a similar topic. His feedback as
translated in the present context of your information could be stated as
follows.
"Allah took it upon Himself to preserve Quran. Allah preserved the whole of
Quran, not just 95% of it."
He even insisted that all seven flavors of the Quran are preserved. Further,
he insisted that the seven flavors are identical in meaning, and differ only
in dialectical pronunciation.
I would like to know what other Muslims think on this topic?
"ghali" <ghal...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1137845718....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> 2-95% of the Quran is preserved with the Hijazi script ( we are talking
> first century)
>
> Ghali
>
Yusuf B Gursey
klei...@astound.net wrote:
> ghali wrote:
>
> >
> > Le manuscrit
> > 328a de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France has already been printed
> > while le manuscrit ar. 2165 de la British Library is in print.
>
> <omitted>
>
> > Only 16 words in the Hijazi manuscripts are orthograpically different from the standard
> > quran after the usual considerations!
>
> By "the Hijazi manuscripts" do you mean the two manuscripts that have
> been printed? Are there still more Hijazi manuscripts to come? By
> "Hijazi" do you mean all non-Kufic manuscripts or just a particular
it's a form of calligraphy of what was later called 'Kufic'.
> subset? I gather I am going have to look at the books to understand
> exactly what "the usual considerations" are when "orthographically
> different" is being discussed.
here is what is an example of what is meant:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
Manuscript from the British Library, written in Hijazi (or Ma'il)
script.
MS. Or. 2165: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra In The
British
Library.
Hailed as by the earlier keepers of it as "probably the earliest Qur'an
ever brought to Europe", the British Library says that it is the
"oldest
Qur'an manuscript" in their possession. This manuscript is written in
Hijazi (or Ma'il) script. It is usually dated around mid-second century
of hijra.
>
> But it is obvious that if these two old manuscripts have the usual set
> of surats in the usual order, even with hundreds of orthographic
> differences, then they were written after the Qur'an was canonized.
>
> This is getting a little circular. If the manuscripts are Ummayyad they
> were copied before
> AH 132 and if they were copied before AH 132 they are Ummayyad. As
> noted before, the
> date the manuscripts were copied is what matters. Dynasty is
> irrelevant.
>
> > The Hijazi script has been dated from the mid to the end of the first century
> > after Hijra!
>
> We have almost nothing dated from before the end of the first century
> and very little before the end of the second century. This is not an
> easy paleographic problem
but there are early dated Qur'ans:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html#6
The first century manuscript is dated 94 AH / 712-13 CE and is from
Iran. The two second century hijra copies, dating 102 AH / 720 CE and
107 AH / 725 CE are in Egyptian National Library, Cairo; the latter
we have already discussed above.
also note that these dates are not the date of the writing of the codex
but when the condex came to be in the possesion of the waqf (trust).
> If either or both of these manuscripts are agreed to date from Umayyad
> times then most of what Wansborough speculated about was wasted effort.
> If they are post-Umayyad much of what he discussed is still relevant
> even though the cutoff date must be pulled back. Almost nothing in his
> arguments depends on the Qur'an being canonized in AH 200 instead of
> around AH 150 or anytime thereafter.
so, see above.
ghali
Yes
>By no proof, do you mean
>no one (other than Puin and his cohort) have been able to examine the
>manuscripts? I ask because I myself have wondered if anyone has
>reproduced the manuscripts for public examination, or if we are still
>in a position where we have to take Puin's word for it...
No one other that Puin and his cohorts have made the claim of having
manuscripts with extensive ( I think he says in the 1000's?? )
pre-uthmanic variations. Deroche in his entry (i.e. Encylopedia of
Islam) seemed in an academic way to be a bit skeptical. He says that
all the manuscripts that he has come across are generally very close to
the canonical tradition. He goes then to say that it is CLAIMED by Puin
et al that that there are pre-uthmanic variants. He cites the article
that you have read that only mentions two.
Funny enough, Deroche has been granted access to the manuscripts in
Sanaa! It is Eygpt and the private collection in Turkey that are
diffcult to get access to. (see his interview)
Now this is not an issue of age. The Sanaa manuscripts are not unique.
What was of value was the confirmation of an Umaayyad Quran. That is
it! There are many manuscripts around the world that are just as
early!!
It would seem strange that only Puin has been lucky enought to find a
new "tradition". Puin is a revisionist after all and he does have an
agenda( I can give you references for this)
>On a side note which is possibly not relevant, Puin makes note of an
>eight-volume dictionary titled "Mu'jam al-Qira'at al-Qur'aniyyah" in
>his contribution to Stefan Wild's "The Qur'an as Text" (cf. p. 109). He
>seems to be claiming there are many more variant readings
>(recitations?) mentioned therein. Have you consulted....
Yes see my comments above. When do we read a word as a variant?
Something is vague to read he then jumps in and waves a magic wand to
provide a new variant( I seriously think he is doing this) The two
variants he mentioned can easily be put aside by CONTEXT alone.
Exaaggerated findings again!
>He lists an extremely small number of variants, and the Sana'a manuscripts
>apparently date to well before the final date speculated by Wansbrough
>30 years ago. Therefore if you're so hellbent on discrediting the
>general date provided by Wansbrough for the completion of the Qur'an,
>you could note to the aforementioned "polemical types" that even siding
>with Puin's article provides grounds on which to doubt Wansbrough's
>date. Your thoughts on this are greatly appreciated.
He lists them as a tantiliser of what is to come! But as of yet no
published work! And I am skeptical given the results from everywhere
else ( I could be wrong) The Chrisitan missionaries say that he is
afraid to be killed! In the academic circles the rumours are more
circumspect. He is running out of money! But I agree Puin is enough to
bury Wansborough.
Funny enough there are still people like Herbert Berg that try to hold
on to its main elements.
Ghali
ghali
> By "the Hijazi manuscripts" do you mean the two manuscripts that have
> been printed? Are there still more Hijazi manuscripts to come? By
> "Hijazi" do you mean all non-Kufic manuscripts or just a particular
> subset? I gather I am going have to look at the books to understand
> exactly what "the usual considerations" are when "orthographically
> different" is being discussed.
Yes therer are many more in the collections in Turkey, Eygpt and
obviously in Sanaa. I am sure each main capital of the middle east will
have its fair share (probably not North Africa, excluding Egypt). Some
have been cataloged and mentioned by Munajjid, and Deroche. So this is
the early stages. The two facsmilies are of two main fragments in
London and Paris. In Paris there are more. If three manuscripts i.e the
two noted and one in Istanbul account for the 94% then it would be
reasonable to assume that we would have a complete collection with an
eventual meta analysis as Deroche likes to say. Hijazi is divided into
different subtypes as mentioned by Deroche in his Catalogue of the
collection in Paris. There are a number of examples on the
Islamic-awareness site. Not all non-Kufic are Hijazi, but that would be
obvious! As for the "usual considerations" issue that is dealt with in
the interview. 16 refers to one manuscript, just thought to clarify it.
There is nothing much in other one as mentioned by Noseda in his
lecture in Cairo when presenting the second part as well. In other
words there is nothing to write home about. If we had a consistent
variation i.e. a different word not mentioned in the literature we
would be informed trust me on this!!
> But it is obvious that if these two old manuscripts have the usual set
> of surats in the usual order, even with hundreds of orthographic
> differences, then they were written after the Qur'an was canonized.
The order of Surah's is bit of a red herring. The stronger opinion and
that of the majority is that the order is not an issue of divine
inspiration. In fact you have many late Qurans with variation in
orders. Puin exaggerates this a bit to much. It is more common in the
manuscripts than you think.
> If we could date either manuscript, then we would have a date about
> which we can state that the Qur'an was canonized before that date. I
> gather we are reduced to paleographic evidence. Paleography is so
> specialized a matter that an outdsider like me cannot even comment
> meaningfully. But I would have to see what the opinions of many
> paleographers were before I would accept any date.
Most Paleographers now think that the Hijazi script is early, from the
time of Uthman to the mid second century. So if it is an issue of trust
in authority there you go!
> > So much for the many variations cited by Puin!
>
> The variations cited by Puin are either much older than these
> manuscripts or they are from a tradition that did not accept the
> canonization. I have not seen enough of Puin's material to have an
> opinion.
In fact they are not much older! That was the whole point!. There is no
tradition that Puin has discovered and we are yet to get to his
publications. Anything with an alif maqsura to him can lead to a
variation if read in the wrong way. I think this one of the tricks he
may be playing. Again my hunch is that this is exaggerated. To have a
tradition anyway, you must have a variation that is non-canonical which
is consistent, repeated and not just in one manuscript. It must have a
geographic spread, and also have SOME historical foundation.
A variation in one manuscript that is not represented nor repeated in
other collections is suspect as a "tradition". Why cannot it simply be
a copyists idiosyncracy? It is a more simple and reasonable
explaination. Anyway we still wait and from the studies on other Hijazi
manuscripts, which are just as early as the Sanaa ones, we probably
will not expect much!
His two variations mention in Wild's book are not even contextual!
> > 95% of the Quran is preserved with the Hijazi script.
>
> What 5% is missing?
Trust me no consipracy here. The 5% that is missing in most manuscripts
are from the beginings and the end of the Quran. Those parts are most
susceptible to damage. It is a fact of life. Funny this happens to ALL
manuscripts in secular and other religious traditions. Not a secret
cult with a different Quran! LOL!
> This is getting a little circular. If the manuscripts are Ummayyad they
> were copied before
> AH 132 and if they were copied before AH 132 they are Ummayyad. As
> noted before, the
> date the manuscripts were copied is what matters. Dynasty is
> irrelevant.
This is NOT circular. First Deroche is making a case for PRE Umaayad
manuscripts, using the dated Umaayad Qurans. Dynasty IS an issue,
becuase there are particular artistic illuminations that are particular
to this dynasty as noted by Von Bothmner and Marylin Jenkins!
Even if we had a geographic spread in the Umayyad period, that alone
would be enough to push it back to the first four caliphs. Things do
not pop up in an historcal vacuum and an AHISTORICAL conspiracy is NO
conspiracy.
> We have almost nothing dated from before the end of the first century
> and very little before the end of the second century. This is not an
> easy paleographic problem
Eh? Yes we do, see the C14 range for the Walid manuscript. The was also
a folio ( in print) that was presented by Yassin Dutton in a conference
in Germany with an even earlier range. It is very similar to the
Umaayad manuscript. There is also an IDENTICAL Umaayad kufic manuscript
in Istanbul which has about 95% of the Quran. It is Identical to the
dated folios noted. There is also a Carbon dated manuscript ( mid
second century ) in Petersburg. There is also a carbon dated folio with
identical script to one almost COMPLETE Quran in the Hussain mosque and
the Tashkent manuscript that has been carbon dated to an early to mid
8th century. See Deroche's contribution to the Encyclopedia of Islam.
Also see his article New evidence for Ummayad book hands? in the
collection of essays in memory of Munajjid.
If you mean colophon or waqf, then ok. But who says that is it?
Something may not be easy. but it does not follow that it is relative.
> You don't mean "preservation of the script". You mean "We have
> manuscripts from the first century which contain 95% of the canonical
> Qur'an". Obviously Wansborough did not believe that there were any
> copies on the canonical Qur'an earlier than the very end of the second
> century. If there are some (the two being discussed and perhaps others)
> then Wansborough was wrong. If there are none (the paleographic dating
> being too vague) then Wansborough was right
Paleographical dating is not vague if you can't be bothered to go into
its detail! At least you should be humble enough to say that
>Canonization means
> the formation of the standard collection (including rejection of some
> material that generally had been accepted - like the surat about the
> Camel).
Tell me about this Surat Al Jamal! LOL! Come on give me something
better than this.
If ALL the manuscripts that we have studied show a standard view, or at
least one very close, then it is upon the conspiracy nuts to provide
the proof!
> The date of all the old manuscripts need to be estimated (if a
> manuscript is actually dated that is delightful, provided we can be
> assured that the date is authentic). I am not sanguine about us ever
> reaching any consensus about the Hijazi manuscripts.
And who are you? You yourself admitted that you are no expert. Who says
we are looking for consensus anyway. We are looking at a reasonable
argument not a democratic election. People differ but arguments can be
outweighed!
> If either or both of these manuscripts are agreed to date from Umayyad
> times then most of what Wansborough speculated about was wasted effort.
In fact if you read his interview he thinks a significant chunk of
Hijazi folios may be dated before the Umaayad period (that was the
whole point!). At least these manuscripts are early Umaayad. But we
have dated Umaayd Qurans not exclusively related to these folios. See
his article that I mentioned. So Wansborough was a bit of wasted
effort. In fact Puin alone with his set demolishes his argument!
>. Almost nothing in his
> arguments depends on the Qur'an being canonized in AH 200 instead of
> around AH 150 or anytime thereafter.
I dont know how reached this conclusion?
Ghali
klei...@astound.net
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> Hailed as by the earlier keepers of it as "probably the earliest Qur'an
> ever brought to Europe", the British Library says that it is the
> "oldest
> Qur'an manuscript" in their possession. This manuscript is written in
> Hijazi (or Ma'il) script. It is usually dated around mid-second century
> of hijra.
I am only an amateur paleographer but, in my opinion, this script,
which I called non-Kufic is really quite different from Kufic. I fear
that it depends on what one means by Kufic. If there is a one-to-one
correspondence between the letters of Ma'il script and Kufic script
then it really does make no difference. Is there such a correspondence?
>
> but there are early dated Qur'ans:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html#6
>
> The first century manuscript is dated 94 AH / 712-13 CE and is from
> Iran. The two second century hijra copies, dating 102 AH / 720 CE and
> 107 AH / 725 CE are in Egyptian National Library, Cairo; the latter
> we have already discussed above.
>
> also note that these dates are not the date of the writing of the codex
> but when the condex came to be in the possesion of the waqf (trust).
I am in no position to have a personal opinion about such matters. But
I have encountered (sorry, I can no longer say where) the statement
that these dates are invalid because they were forged at much later
dates. Obviously such a statement is tendentious. But how can we ever
be sure? Perhaps, if one knew more about the waqfs involved, this could
be answered. But, so far as I know, there is no evidence at all (apart
from these codices) of waqfs at such early dates. What is known about
early wafqs?
> > If either or both of these manuscripts are agreed to date from Umayyad
> > times then most of what Wansborough speculated about was wasted effort.
> > If they are post-Umayyad much of what he discussed is still relevant
> > even though the cutoff date must be pulled back. Almost nothing in his
> > arguments depends on the Qur'an being canonized in AH 200 instead of
> > around AH 150 or anytime thereafter.
Most people these days seem to think Wansborough went too far when he
placed canonization as late as the end of the second century. On the
basis of the manuscript mentioned above the current opinion seems to
place it mid first century. As I mentioned most of Wansborough
arguments depend on very early Abbascide literature and are not
contradicted by a canonization in mid first century.
ghali
> > the only variations noted that are outside the
> > usual muslim literature ( taking into account scribal errors) are
> > Puin's, yet we have no proof as of yet for this extensive variation.
>
> Is this in reference to Puin's writing on the Qur'anic manuscripts from
> Sana'a? If so, this is an interesting point.
Lo and behold I have made a mistake! Forgive me "Master Dajjal
al-Kaafir al-Murtad"
( moderators he is alright with this insult)
I have come across Yassin Dutton's articles and THERE ARE pre-uthmanic
variations. Would you you believe it, Subhanallah?
They are variations in the way the word is pronounced. One learns from
this "Never make a categorical statement" (there you go a paradox! )
This even gets more interesting though. For muslim scholars it is
important that the rasm is the same, and is generally within the
readings mentioned in Islamic awareness.
Experts ( Muslim imams in the past) i.e. traditional scholar of
islam, generally never said that we have COMPLETE information on the
dialects of each tribe( I can get references for this). The readings
are not the variant dialectics, and are just details passed down on how
the various scholars of islam read the Quran based on these 7
dialectics. A dialect could allow for than one way in reading a text.
A reading could have contributions from different dialectics.
Puin's problems remain though, and both Deroche and Yassin Dutton think
that there are inflated claims to exaggerate his findings ( An ego
issue here?) By the way this is my personal opinion gained from reading
their stuff.
So what about these pre-uthmanic variants that are in texts
1- They are few and far between! That is important to know
2- Generally speaking it is very difficult to prove that they are
really variants. We do not have consistent mention of this variant A.
in different mansucripts, nor a geographical spread. In other words we
cannot really differentiate it from the scribal idiosyncracy.
3- In islam we need an isnad. So variants without an isnad are viewed
with a curiousity and a shrug of the shoulder . Could be, but we just
don't know.
4- Funny enough and this is an emphasis again it has NEVER been a
problem of islam, or at least it within the mainstream i.e. The Quran
is preserved in the reading preserved by Uthman which we do know is
true, and the variants that are pre uthmanic do not change the meaning
of this quran, maybe the way we pronounce things. That by definition is
a preserved text! That is also attested to in the manuscripts.
So I guess I expect the pre-uthmanic variants to appear in the texts of
Puin, but my claim still stands that they are probably exaggerated. At
least one claim of Puin is know to be exaggerated. The issue of Surah
Orders. This is present in many manuscripts, even later ones. It is NOT
a particular find to the "sanaa cult of muslims" if their ever was one.
This "new history" that Puin is talking about is not new at all and
will probably will tally with other findings. What would be interesting
would be a pre-uthmanic variant that has a significant change in the
rasm of the text. This of course reproduced in a number of manuscripts.
Finally this pre-uthmanic variant is a silver lining. It actually
provides a "proof" of an era that is more "fluid" in nature. An era
that is "early". Which can help in dating the scripts. It also shows
that Uthman was not out there to suppress radical information say on
the "caliphate of Ali" ( and I know full well that this is not the
position of the Shia), but only to make things simple. Simplicity is a
key in preservation.
Ghali