Re: Many Variant Readings of the Quran
Hajj Abujamal
BK wrote:
> "It is interesting to note that in scholarly Muslim journals, there
> is beginning to be a grudging acknowledgment of the fact that there
> are variant and conflicting readings on the text of the Quran" (One
> example would be Saleh al-Wahaihu, "A Study of Seven Quranic
> Variants," International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies, Vol.
> V (1989), #2, pp. 1-57).
(Sigh) Another cut-and-paste artist who hasn't done his homework.
All these contentions have been refuted by muslims who post to this
forum:
http://www.quranicstudies.com/article60.html (excerpts)
It seems the Christian writer wants to say that Muslims are hiding
their variant readings whereas the Christians are open about it by
publishing and discussing them in scholarly journals. Certainly he has
no clue about how the Muslims have treated their Qirâ'at readings
(which is sometimes wrongly called as 'variant readings'). But before
that it is worthwhile pointing out that the book of Arthur Jeffery
Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices
used by Christian missionaries to show that the Qur'an is "corrupted"
gets all the variant readings from the classical sources of Qur'anic
exegesis and some of them more than 1000 years old!
(classical references omitted ~ see the article at the above link)
In these classical sources, the variant readings are well documented
and they were discussed extensively from the point of view of grammar
and their origin. Hence more than 1000 years ago, even before the
Biblical criticism was conceived, Muslims knew what the variant
readings of the Qur'an were and from where they originated. And it is
the Christian missionaries who really had the "advantage" and have
used the Qirâ'at dishonestly to assert that the Qur'an is corrupted.
It is clear from the sources quoted above that Muslims were neither
scared nor uncomfortable with dealing with the variant readings. They
were rather professional in their approach towards dealing with the
variant readings and also developed an elaborate science called "cUlûm
al-Qirâ'at". Bernard Lewis in his book Islam in History writes:
From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false
testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science
for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called,
differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and
modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of
traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient
narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission
and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the
transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a
professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and
without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the
historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even
the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom
still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume,
variety and analytical depth.
So, long before the textual criticism of the Bible originated, Muslims
already went through the process of textual criticism. The Qirâ'at
were well-known among the Muslims. It is also worthwhile to point out
that even to this day Muslims recite the Qur'an in various Qirâ'at.
Moreover, these are also available in printed editions.
Adrian Brockett after studying the Hafs and Warsh Qirâ'at says ( See
his article "The Value of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual
History Of The Qur'an"):
The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was
essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and
nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be
taken out nor could anything be put in.
In conclusion it can be said that the Muslims had the 'critical text'
right from the time of the Prophet(P).
(end excerpts)
These cut-and-paste missionaries with their agenda to case doubt
among those still becoming educated are getting tiresome. They're not
here to discuss Islam, they're here to insinuate doubt using the same
tired contentions that have been endlessly refuted by muslims who have
done their homework. Isn't there some common sense among the moderators?
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
BK
Muslims attack the Bible on the grounds that it sometimes has conflicting
wording from different manuscripts. Yet this is exactly the case with the
text of the Quran. There are many conflicting readings on the text of the
Quran as Arthur Jeffery has demonstrated in his book, Material for the
History of the Text of the Quran (New York, Russell F. Moore, 1952).
At one point Jeffery gives 90 pages of variant readings on the text. For
example, in Sura 2 there are over 140 conflicting and variant readings on
the text of the Quran.
All Western and Muslim scholars admit the presence of variant readings in
the text of the Quran (Dashti, 23 Years, p. 28; Mandudi, Meaning of the
Quran, pp. 17-18; McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, V152).
Guillaume points out that the Quran at first "had a large number of
variants, not always trifling in significance" (Islam, p. 189).
Saqib Virk
"BK" <mend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:krhCh.3966$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Many Variant Readings of the Quran
> Muslims attack the Bible on the grounds that it sometimes has conflicting
> wording from different manuscripts.
SV
It has conflicting wording in the same manuscript. For example, the very
Bible you have in your possession today will say:
"Ahazi'ah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned
one year in Jerusalem..." [2 Kings 8:26]
vs.
"Ahazi'ah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one
year in Jerusalem..." [2 Chronicles 22:2]
There is no way around this problem. Adam Clark, a well known commentator of
the Bible states under I Chronicles 7:6, that here Ezra, the alleged author,
mistakenly writes names of grandsons instead of sons and that to try to
reconcile such contradictions is useless. The problems of incorrect
reporting of relations or incorrect ages or numbers are obvious but there
are other much greater problems with the Bible as well.
> Yet this is exactly the case with the text of the Quran.
SV
You are ignorant about the matter. It is quite true to say the Quran has not
undergone change and has remained the same pure message as was revealed to
the Prophet. To argue otherwise is to deceive oneself or an attempt to
deceive others. Most of those who attempt to argue there are significant
variations in the Quran fail to understand that, aside from the Muslim
belief that God Himself is the protector of the purity of the Quran, the
primary protection comes from the fact that it has always been an oral
transmission. The text is secondary and any two scribes copying a book will
produce two variants of the original.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk