What happened to the original Koran?
Robert Houghton
formative period of Islam; thus Muslim tradition cannot be confirmed; indeed
archaeological and other extra-Islamic evidence disconfirms it. This applies
to the Koran itself.
Yet according to orthodox Islamic scholars, Islam gives us all the evidence
we need for the divine intervention which produced its revelation. Thus the
question arises why the Uthmanic document, the final canonic version of the
Koran has not survived. After all, according to Muslims this was the most
important document that has ever existed: the word for word transcription of
the original inscribed on tablets in Heaven, the final Revelation of God to
the world. This was the most precious object that had ever existed, so why
was it not preserved for all mankind? The Christian scholars who recorded
the first incursions of the Arabs were not aware that they had a Holy Book.
At another level why is it that no Islamic documents survive until well into
the eighth century? Contrast the position with Christianity: 5,300
manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other
early versions, totaling 24,000 New Testament manuscripts, survive from well
before the seventh century.
God has been very sparing with the evidence for his final revelation.
mugz
Robert Houghton wrote:
> Before 750CE no Muslim document has survived which can throw light on the
> formative period of Islam;
You need to update your facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin
Additionally, the reason that so 'few' exist is because:
IBN ABI DAWUD, Kitab al-Masahif, Page 22: (Ali) said 'What is your
opinion in this matter of qira'at (reading)? It has been reported to me
that some are saying 'My reading is superior to your reading'. He
(Uthman) said 'My view is that we should unite the people on a single
text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or
disagreement'
SAHIH BUKHARI Volume 6, Number 510: Narrated Anas bin Malik: "O chief
of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book
(Qur'an)" ... Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what
they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials,
whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.
mugz
tahir...@comcast.net
Peace Robert,
<<<Yet according to orthodox Islamic scholars, Islam gives us all the
evidence
we need for the divine intervention which produced its revelation. >>>
You are right. The history of the Qur'an and its preservation from day
one was never in the hands of humans. I can't tell you how the Qur'an
was preserved, nor do I have the desire to know it---because Allah (you
can say God) did preserve it HIMSELF and He make no bones about its
preservation. He said it plainly and squrely "We revealed it and We
guard it". What else do we want--archelogical evidene. Well good
luck.
<<<Contrast the position with Christianity: 5,300
manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300
other
early versions, totaling 24,000 New Testament manuscripts, survive from
well
before the seventh century.>>>
Now tell me, Robert: Do you find any two 'different' Qur'ans? You
can't---because there aren't any! This is beacause Allah preserved it.
How? I have no idea.
But the Qur'an says that for other revealed books, the rabbis and
priests and doctors of law were given the duty to preserve the
scriptures. Now perhaps you can see why there are "5,300 manuscripts
of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early
versions, totaling 24,000 New Testament manuscripts".
Imagine if you asked a 1000 historians to write about what happened on
9/11/2001! You will have 1000 versions--all touted as truth.
No, I am happy with just ONE version, and not 24,000 versions--and I
have no desire to know how that was preserved.
I have no doubt that it was.
Peace again,
Irfan
M. S. M. Saifullah
> Before 750CE no Muslim document has survived which can throw light on the
> formative period of Islam; thus Muslim tradition cannot be confirmed; indeed
> archaeological and other extra-Islamic evidence disconfirms it. This applies
> to the Koran itself.
That is strange! There are Qur'anic manuscripts written in archaic
hijazi script which are tentatively dated to first half of the first
century of hijra.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
As for the Muslim tradition and its antiquity, you are better off
studying some of the recent works of Harald Motzki who has proven that
the antiquity of the islamic traditions go back to the first century of
hijra.
As for Islamic inscriptions there exist numerous ones from the first
century of hijra. The earliest one with a photograph comes from 24 AH.
Please check:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/
As for the the Arabic papyri, the earliest one is from 22 AH. More info
at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/
They are well below the date of 750 CE that you have mentioned.
> At another level why is it that no Islamic documents survive until well into
> the eighth century? Contrast the position with Christianity: 5,300
> manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other
> early versions, totaling 24,000 New Testament manuscripts, survive from well
> before the seventh century.
Who are you fooling here. Did you not know that only about 5% of the
Greek manuscripts that you have listed are before the advent of Islam?
Much of this is already discussed at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
Regards
Saifullah
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1166501488.9...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
>> Before 750CE no Muslim document has survived which can throw light on the
>> formative period of Islam;
> You need to update your facts: ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Certainly, the author needs to update his facts (assuming that his facts
were reliable in the first place) concerning Islam, Muslims or the Qur'an.
The anti-Muslim 'Apocalyptic Blogosphere' isn't noted for its dependability;
and unthinkingly lifting articles, from notoriously unreliable websites,
only compounds the issue. One could ask if the discovery of the truth really
matters at all.
This subject "What happened to the original Koran?' folderol is just another
example of the unethical 'statistical problem in association' trick.
'Instant pseudo-scholarship', by thoughtlessly parroting others, without the
essential study and independent verification of the facts is quite a common
occurrence amongst anti-Muslim commentators in this forum. The transcripts
repeatedly verify that self-evident fact.
For example, how can you have any confidence in any anti-Muslim commentator
who consistently denies, in his argument against Islam and Muslims, that the
mediaeval Church, up until at least mid-8th century, was under total Greek
Orthodox influence, or domination. That the Church generally spoke Greek as
their intellectual language, and in written ecclesiastical matters. Isn't
any wonder there's a proliferation of Greek 'scriptural' manuscripts under
this Byzantine regime during the formative epoch of Islam?
--
Peace
--
Facts and truth really don't have much to do with each other. [William
Faulkner]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Altway
"mugz" <tjord...@hotmail.com> wrote
> SAHIH BUKHARI Volume 6, Number 510: Narrated Anas bin Malik: "O chief
of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book
(Qur'an)" ... Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what
they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials,
whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.
Comment:-
The Quran existed in fragments and different people had different sets of
fragments.
Under Uthman all were collected into one book.
There are no reports that there was any protest or disagreement against
this.
The case with the Quran is nothing like that which surrounds the New
Testament.
There appear to have been about 30 different gospels and only 4 were
included in the NT
and even these date from more than a century after Jesus and seem to have
been written
by other than those to whom they are attributed.
It is this fact that makes persons hostile to Islam try hard to persuade us
that something
similar is the case with the Quran. But this is a futlie attempt.
Hamid S. Aziz
mugz
tahir...@comcast.net wrote:
> Peace Robert,
>
> <<<Yet according to orthodox Islamic scholars, Islam gives us all the
> evidence
> we need for the divine intervention which produced its revelation. >>>
>
> You are right. The history of the Qur'an and its preservation from day
> one was never in the hands of humans. I can't tell you how the Qur'an
> was preserved, nor do I have the desire to know it---because Allah (you
> can say God) did preserve it HIMSELF and He make no bones about its
> preservation. He said it plainly and squrely "We revealed it and We
> guard it". What else do we want--archelogical evidene. Well good
> luck.
>
This is just silly. If you read my references, you will discover that
there were at one time many different versions of the Quran. What you
have now is the version written by Uthman and Zaid.
Even the versions of history written by Muslims testify that Mohammeds
closest disciple accused Uthman and Zaid of corrupting the Quran. This
burning of other versions of the Quran upset noone more than Abdullah
ibn Mas'ud, one of the muhajirun who had been with Muhammad from the
beginning of his mission in Mecca. He was very vocal in his opposition
because he did not think Zaid was qualified for such a task:
IBN ABI DAWUD, Kitab al-Masahif, Page 17: Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I
recited from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had
perfected before Zaid ibn Thabit had embraced Islam!"
Mas'ud even went further, and implied Ziad and Uthman were corrupting
the Quran, (just like Muslims today accuse Jews and Christians of
having corrupted the Bible):
IBN ABI DAWUD, Kitab al-Masahif, Page 15: Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I
acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when
Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired
directly from the messenger of Allah?"
IBN SA'D, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, Page 444: Ibn Mas'ud gave
a khutba (sermon) in Kufa and declared: "The people have been guilty of
deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according
to the recitation of him By Him besides Whom there is no god!"
There are also many references in the Hadith that address the arguments
between Uthman and Zaid as to how the Quran should be writen, such as:
SUNAN ABU-DAWUD BOOK 3, Number 785: Yazid al-Farisi said: I heard Ibn
Abbas say: I asked Uthman ibn Affan: What moved you to put the (Surah)
al-Bara'ah which belongs to the mi'in and the (Surah) al-Anfal which
belongs to the mathani in the category of as-sab'u at-tiwal and you did
not write "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful"
between them?
So, one really needs to look no further than the history of the Quran
as written by Muslims themselves, to see clearly that there was huamn
influence, and more than just 'a little'.
Combine that with the more recent archeological discoveries, and it
becomes pretty clear that the Quran was created by men.
mugz
Robert
Non-Muslim scholars disagree with you as to the survival of Koranic
manuscripts from the formative period of Islam.
You adduce alleged Islamic traditions that go back to the first
century, but my reference is not to traditions but documents. Similarly
you refer to inscriptions and Arabic papyri but you fail to assert that
they throw light on the formative period of Islam.
If the manuscripts in hijazi script are those of the Yemen mosque, they
are not in the public domain: the Yemeni authorities will not permit
the German scholar who has studies them to publish his findings.
mugz
Robert Houghton wrote:
Actually, you need to update your information. Here is what happened:
SAHIH BUKHARI Volume 6, Number 510: Narrated Anas bin Malik: "O chief
of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book
(Qur'an)" ... Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what
they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials,
whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.
But a few survived:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin
mugz
Robert
It is a myth and a hoax that the Koran is perfectly preserved in its
copies across the world and down the ages. The Korans DO differ - there
are four or five versions - in different parts of the Islamic world,
though the differences are of no religious significance. (See Answering
islam for the details.) Also in the beginning, as is well known, there
were rival versions in use; Uthman called them in, chose one and burnt
the rest - or so the tradition goes.
It is significant too that the Muslim authorities will not allow the
publication of the very old Korans kept at Samarkand and Topkapi. The
reason must be that they fear it will be disclosed that there were
variants, differing from the present text, in circulation during the
early years of Islam. Similarly the authorities in Yemen will not allow
the publication of the research into the very ancient Koran manuscripts
discovered in an ancient mosque there.
It is easy to see that the idea of the perfectly perserved Koran is a
hoax: anyone who knows Arabic can copy the Koran; are they guaranteed
to make perfect copies? If this were so we could daily witness
astonishing miracles.
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
I'm not so sure your description of early Islamic history is an
accurate one. Take your statement here:
"Before 750CE no Muslim document has survived which can throw light
on the
formative period of Islam; thus Muslim tradition cannot be confirmed;
indeed
archaeological and other extra-Islamic evidence disconfirms it. This
applies
to the Koran itself."
Perhaps, however I am inclined to think that this is patently false.
There are many inscriptions, archeological sites, and papyri documents
that go un-analyzed and un-published. Archaeology and paleography, and
papyrology of early Islamic history have barely begun, and we still
await the results of the ongoing investigation of many of the analyzed
papyri documents. Thus, I would say that your above characterization is
rather premature.
As an alternative, consider Robert Hoyland's conclusion here (I quote
Dr. Hoyland in full):
"The reticence of the early Islamic state with regard to religious
declarations reflects the fact that the first Muslim rulers did not
feel obliged or had no pressing need to proclaim publicly the tenets of
their belief. 'Abdul al-Malik did so because he was fighting to hold
the polity together, trying to rally the Muslim community behind him
and to find a rationale for their continued existence together in the
face of a debilitating civil war (note that the next time the title
Khalifat Allah appeared on coins was also in the aftermath of a civil
war, in the reign of al-Ma'mun). the rationale for the state before
him may well have been conquest 'in the way of God', as sketched
out above (all members of the Muslim polity being soldiers whatever
their religion), and social cohesion was maintained by use of Arab
tribal structure (all members were assigned to an Arab tribe/tribesman
whatever their ethnicity). This system was disintegrating by
'Abd-Malik's time, as is clear from the number of Arabs becoming
civilians and the number of non-Arabs forming their own military
regiments, and this was another factor behind the espousal of a new
road to thte 'Abbasid dynasty's use of Islam as the sole source of
legitimization."
Hoyland continues:
"The problem of the historiography of this period is certainly a very
challenging one, and will remain so while no accepted criteria exist to
verify the Muslim literary tradition. And yet there are grounds for
optimism. Firstly, we do have a number of bodies of evidence
--especially non-Muslim sources, papyri, inscriptions and
archaeological excavations--that can serve as a useful external
referent and whose riches are only just beginning to be exploited in a
systematic manner. Secondly, the historical memory of the Muslim
community is more robust than some have claimed. For example, many of
the deities, kings, and tribes of the pre-Islamic Arabs that are
depicted by ninth-century Muslim historians also feature in the
epigraphic record, as do many of the rulers and governors of the early
Islamic state. This makes it difficult to see how historical scenarios
that require for their acceptance a total discontinuity in the
historical memory of the Muslim community -- such as that Muhammad did
not exist, the Qur'an was not written in Arabic, Mecca was originally
in a different place etc. --can really be justified. Many of these
scenarios rely on an absence of evidence, but it seems a shame to make
such a recourse when there are so many very vocal forms of material
evidence still waiting to be studied."* -- "New Documentary Texts and
the Early Islamic State" in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies: vol 9,
part 3, 2006. Pp 15-16
* Consider this footnote (73): "For example, 'of the tens of
thousands of Arabic documents preserved in museum and library
collections around the world only some two thousand have been published
so far' and 'electronic and printed databases...Arabic papyrology
lacks' (www.ori.unizh.ch/isap/isapchecklist.html, as at 11.2005). And
only some 850 of the Austrian National Library's 76,000-strong
papyrus collection have been published! This is, however being changed
by such talented scholars as Petra Sijpesteijn, Andreas Kaplony and
others involved in the newly formed International Society for Arabic
Papyrology."
A similar conclusion can be drawn here:
Jeremy Johns, "Archaeology and the History of Early Islam: The First
Seventy Years" in the Journal of Economic and Social History of the
Orient: vol 46, number 4, 2003.
As well as here:
Clive Foss, "A Syrian coinage of Muawiya", Revue Numismatique 2002,
353.
While I share your conviction that we lack an Uthman Qur'an, the
absence of such need not be so gloomy. The best has yet to come. Stay
tuned!
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
Altway
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote
> Before 750CE no Muslim document has survived which can throw light on the
formative period of Islam; thus Muslim tradition cannot be confirmed;
indeed
archaeological and other extra-Islamic evidence disconfirms it. This
applies
to the Koran itself.
Comment:-
The Prophet formed an Islamic community and there were always people
in it who memorised the Quran.
The verses of the Quran had been written down from the beginning
and when it was gathered into a book there were sufficient people
who could have objected to the inclusion or exclusion of something.
One of the objections was that the execution of adulterers was omitted
but even this did not lead to its inclusion.
The many of Hadith also serve to reinforce it.
The Quran has a style of its own that preserves it and an inner
self-consistency, a pattern
by which the parts support each other..
And there are several repetitions of the same ideas though given in
different forms,
so that even if something was lost, it is still recoverable.
There is no reason to believe that the Quran is other than it originally
was.
In any case, it is the claim of the Quran that it will be preserved and this
applies to its
teachings and we can interpret this as meaning that the Quran is exactly as
it was meant to be.
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
I wasn't trying to fool anybody when I made claims for the survival of
manuscripts of the New Testament. No one would have been fooled for
long (as you demonstrate), for the facts and figures are well known;
there was a mistake in the web article I consulted: the statistics
refer to documents which have survived until the present, not those
which have survived from before the seventh century - I should have
noticed the error.
You fail to answer my question: What happened to the original Koran? I
am sure you believe that this was the most valuable document ever
penned; devout Muslims held that it recorded the very Words of God
Himself; these must have been set down on the most durable of materials
and the Book guarded with reverential awe. Why has it not survived
until the present, and why do we not know its history?
You fail to state that the documents and inscriptions you refer to
confirm the Muslim historical tradition regarding the formative period
of Islam; do they?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c72208$93e946d0$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> Before 750CE no Muslim document has survived which can throw light on the
> formative period of Islam; thus Muslim tradition cannot be confirmed;
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Perhaps the unverifiable, unmentioned and uncorroborated prejudice, is
simply extraneous, or anecdotal, "extra-Islamic" hyperbole, about the
historical Qur'an, which can be easily rebutted, by Muslims, under this
famous maxim:- "The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." [Carl
Sagan].
It's will be fascinating to see if anti-Muslim apologists become experts on
the subtle metaphysics of causation, events and omissions, incidental to
thorough polemics about Islam. They might begin to sound quite Hegelian with
that line dialectical thinking, once learnt, in a post-Bismarckian political
way. <G>
--
Peace
--
For those who do not think, it is best at least to rearrange their
prejudices once in a while. [Luther Burbank]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
John Smith
What is the earliest known dated Quran?
Thanks
John Smith
Robert
Your link does not refute my statement that before 750 no Muslim
document has survived which can throw light on the formative period of
Islam - no date is offered for the Yemeni finds. The article also
states explicitly that the finds corroborate the conclusions of
Wasbrough and his pupils that the Koran does not date from the time of
Muhammad.
faiz....@gmail.com
Reply to Robert
<<<It is a myth and a hoax that the Koran is perfectly preserved in its
copies across the world and down the ages. The Korans DO differ - there
are four or five versions - in different parts of the Islamic world,
though the differences are of no religious significance. (See Answering
islam for the details.) >>>
It would have been prudent to "copy and paste" from the anti-Islamic
website and call it "see, this is the variant copy". I am talking
about the words of the Qur'an--not about the varient readings. Even
this anti-Islamic website admits "though the differences are of no
religious significance". The verse count can be differnt, the scriptal
pattern can be differnt, styles can be differnt--but the words, the
Qur'an, remains the same. Won't you call it 'preserved'? Can you say
the same thing about scriptures God gave the humans to preserve? That
is the point, Robert. You have to read through many Bibles, we read
through only Qur'an and God-willing, man will continue to read it in
its original form till the cows finally come home.
I am not talking about any "history". I am talking about something
that you can physically verify--NOW!
<<<It is significant too that the Muslim authorities will not allow the
publication of the very old Korans kept at Samarkand and Topkapi. The
reason must be that they fear it will be disclosed that there were
variants, differing from the present text,...... in Yemen will not
allow
the publication of the research into the very ancient Koran manuscripts
discovered in an ancient mosque there.>>>
This is a free world. If there was anything 'funny' in there, the
researcher would have published it, no matter what. Seems to me there
wasn't anything fishy there so the researcher was not interested. I
wonder why the Yamanites allowed him to investigate at all--if they
were afraid of anything.
<<<It is easy to see that the idea of the perfectly perserved Koran is
a
hoax: anyone who knows Arabic can copy the Koran; are they guaranteed
to make perfect copies? If this were so we could daily witness
astonishing miracles. >>>
So far you have not proved any "hoax" at all. Repeatedly crying 'hoax'
won't do the trick.
Irfan
faiz....@gmail.com
Obviously you did not get the point I sought to make in my earlier
post. I am familiar with all the 'historical references' you have given
and perhaps a lot more than that--but in serious discourses I do not
rely on ANY history and Hadith at all for my arguments. The reason is
that to me, "Islamic history" and "hadith" have no validity simply
because I have no way to verify it. So, I am giving you the PROOF
right from within the Qur'an which I and ALL Muslims believe is from
Allah--the Absolute Truth!. I know you do not subscribe to this
"Truth" and that is why I gave you a proof that no one--I repeat no
one--can deny---and that is that the Qur'an we see today is ONLY one
and has been exactly the same throughout the last 1400 hundered years.
If you think that people would simply "burn" years' hard work of their
own writing of Allah's revelation just because some "caliph" order them
to do that, you must be naive. It is not possible that everyone would
burn their Qur'an copies just like that. Please do kid yourself. There
were NO OTHER copies of the Qur'an--why? Because there is NO OTHER
Qur'an existent today anywhere in the world. If there is, show me, and
I would listen to you.
Thats' what I call "preservation by Allah Himself"! How was this
remarkable preservation executed by Allah? I have no idea--nor do I
have any interest to venture into this futile exercise.
Got it?
Irfan
Robert
When you refer to "variant readings" of the Koran, I presume you refer
to different vowel pointings, but the variations that I referred to
were varations in the consonants. The fact that these are of no
religious significance is beside the point: they are variations.
Your statement that there are many Bibles is a preposterous falsehood
repeated often by Muslims. There are many manuscript copies of the New
Testament that have come down to us from the Ancient World, and there
are copyists' errors and a number of more significant variations in
them, but critical comparison enables the estalishment of the original
texts with almost complete accuracy. The trifling remaining
uncertainties are of no religious importance. However, Christians make
no claim for a 'miraculous' nature of the Biblical texts and their
transmission as Muslims popularly do.
Abu Hamza
Altway wrote:
> In any case, it is the claim of the Quran that it will be preserved and this
> applies to its
> teachings
All Muslims are required to believe that Qur'an is preserved, not only
in teachings but in words, ayahs, Surah's etc. That's the claim of
Qur'an as interpreted and believed by Muslims, adults and kids.
(Just to correct one of your heretical beliefs)
Altway
"Abu Hamza" <ali...@sunnipath.com> wrote
>> In any case, it is the claim of the Quran that it will be preserved and
>> this
applies to its teachings
> All Muslims are required to believe that Qur'an is preserved, not only
in teachings but in words, ayahs, Surah's etc. That's the claim of
Qur'an as interpreted and believed by Muslims, adults and kids.
Comment:-
Are these not the teachings of the Quran?
Or is it your contention that the words, ayas, surahs have no meaning?
Strange fellow!
> (Just to correct one of your heretical beliefs)
Comment:-
I did not know I was a heretic!
I am most interested to learn:-
Which sect do you belong to according to which I am a heretic
and which heretical ideas are you speaking about?
Or are you perhaps criticising without understandings.
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
Here are the conclusions of the scholar, Adrian Brockett, derived from
his study of just two variant transmissions of the Koran (there are
many);
"Lists of the differences between the two transmissions are long, ...
The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal (vowel
and diacritical points) or GRAPHIC (basic letter), between the
transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect
on the meaning. Many are differences which do not change the meaning at
all, and the rest are differences with an effect on meaning in the
immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider
influence on Muslim thought. One difference (Q. 2/184) has an effect on
the meaning that might conceivably be argued to have wider
ramifications." [my emphasis].
(Adrian Brockett, `The Value of the Hafs and Warsh transmissions for
the Textual History of the Qur'an', Approaches to the History of the
Interpretation of the Qur'an, ed. Andrew Rippin; Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1988, pp. 34 and 37.)
There is much more material , of easy access, on the textual history of
the Koran on the website "Answering Islam."
As I said, none of the variants is of religious significance, but these
scholarly findings put paid to the myth of the miraculous transmission
of the Koran.
Robert
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
>
> Here are the conclusions of the scholar, Adrian Brockett, derived from
> his study of just two variant transmissions of the Koran (there are
> many);
There are 10 altogether, of which 7 are the most authentic.
> There is much more material , of easy access, on the textual history of
> the Koran on the website "Answering Islam."
Whether they fly or jump up and down, it wont make a difference
because it is a qur-aan (A recital, not a writal).
> As I said, none of the variants is of religious significance, but these
> scholarly findings put paid to the myth of the miraculous transmission
> of the Koran.
Scholarly findings? They make it seems that they discovered the
readings of the Quran. In reality, however, the topic is part of the
sciences of the Quran and has been the subject of many many
Muslim scholars. But what can we say about intellectual theives?
What some idiots call "variations" of the Quran are simply authentic
ways to read (pronounce) the Quran. And yes, it has some miraculous
aspects. And NO, it cannot be compared with their bible, because their
bible is a collection of many books, while the Quran is just one book.
So
it's easy to focus on one. And NO, the Quran is not a writal, it's a
recital.
That is, if we collect all their manuscripts and all their printed
copies and
burn them, they will end up with no bible. In contrast, if we burn all
the
Quran copies and manuscripts, restoring the Quran in a small Muslim
village will not take more than two hours. This is the difference
between
a writal and a recital.
Abdalla Alothman
Abu Hamza
Altway wrote:
> Comment:-
> Are these not the teachings of the Quran?
> Or is it your contention that the words, ayas, surahs have no meaning?
> Strange fellow!
Preservation of a text and preservation of its teachings (its meanings)
are two different things. Cant you understand that ? You said that (in
any case) the claim of preservation of Qur'an only applied to its
teaching. This statement is false, heretical and dangerous as, if
accepted it will allow people to challange ayahs/verses which don't
suit their whims. As every kid knows and believes, the text of Qur'an
is preserved entirely along with its meaning (in the form of Sunnah).
> > (Just to correct one of your heretical beliefs)
>
> Comment:-
> I did not know I was a heretic!
This is one of your heretical beliefs. Another is that Jews/Christians
are not required to convert to Islam and profess belief in the
Prophethood of Muhammad (s.a.w)
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c72208$93e946d0$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> ... The Christian scholars who recorded
> the first incursions of the Arabs were not aware that they had a Holy
> Book.
<snip>...
Comment:-
Who were these unnamed mythical 'Christian scholars'? Where did these
learned persons go to school? Did they gain their 'scholarly' designation by
long study gaining mastery in one or more disciplines at an institution of
higher learning? Located where? Who were these 'incursive Arabs'? Weren't
Christian members of the Church of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria (Copts,
et al) not ethnic Arabs? Are Muslims and Arabs synonymous in your mind?
But let's compare the sanctioned Qur'an and the Bible by looking at the
chronological date they were actually canonised. Wouldn't that be a fairer
comparison? See this link for details:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
Extract:-
Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily
decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed
very slowly over many centuries. This is not to say that formal councils and
declarations were not involved, however. Some of these include the Council
of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism (by vote: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16
abstain), the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the
Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of
Jerusalem of 1672 for Greek Orthodoxy.
According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia article on the Canon of the New
Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament
existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation
in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the
result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with
doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain
obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term
until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [Council of Trent]."
In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, Early Christianity,
there seems to have been no New Testament canon that was universally
recognized. ...
End extract.
So doesn't this prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there wasn't any
single book that could be deemed the authorised Bible at the advent of
Islam? How could any "Christian scholars" then make any rational comparison
that is being artfully suggested in this thread? What about all the
unsettled 'apocrypha', 'Pseudepigrapha', 'Pseudepigrapha Decretals' (false)
and 'Pseudonymity' articles(written by all those 'scholarly Byzantine
Greek/Syriac speaking monks in this formative period and beyond)? Why has
this deep lacunae been left out of your comparative analysis between the
Qur'an and the subsequently canonical Bible?
Aren't you endeavouring to make a backward projection to justify and
rationalise the canonical Bible with the much earlier canonical Qur'an?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
mugz
faiz....@gmail.com wrote:
--snip--
Well, perhaps then you should have read my other post as copies of the
Quran that vary significantly from the one you have now have been
found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin
On a side note, to just accept a book as being truth just because it
says its truth, is quite naive IMHO. I've been debating a fellow about
the aleged 'scientific miracles' of the quran who refuses to address
pasages in the Quran that refer to stars as being created to gaurd
against evil spirits, and even another passage where it discribes them
as missiles shot into the sky to frighten away Satans. (Presumbably
this would refer to 'falling stars' (meteors) that come down in a
firely blaze as to actually have been one of these missiles hitting its
target).
mugz
Ed
> > If you think that people would simply "burn" years' hard work of their
> own writing of Allah's revelation just because some "caliph" order them
> to do that, you must be naive.
I think you are inventing a scenario now, which is a strawman attack.
But fact is that we do not know what happened. There is only orally
transmitted, very doubtful information about this subject. And there is
no Quran that we can hold in our hand that dates further back than 750
and even these copies are incomplete and their contents have not been
made public.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1166947360.3...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Your link does not refute my statement that before 750 no Muslim
> document has survived which can throw light on the formative period of
> Islam ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Why should discerning subscribers believe your unsupported allegations about
early Muslim documents and manuscripts? Are you suddenly an authority or
expert in this highly specialised area? What serious study have you actually
undertaken that could back up your claim to be an expert? What credible
authority are you now citing? Surely not some piece of notoriously
unreliable ' missionary propaganda', blindly lifted off the anti-Muslim
'Apocalyptic Blogosphere"? Is that the shoddy basis of your statement? Why
should such pernicious folderol., about Muslim manuscripts, be seriously
refuted by any discerning subscriber? As Carl Sagan said;: "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence"!
--
Peace
--
Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.
capsaicin
> All Muslims are required to believe that Qur'an is preserved, not only
> in teachings but in words, ayahs, Surah's etc. That's the claim of
> Qur'an as interpreted and believed by Muslims, adults and kids.
>
> (Just to correct one of your heretical beliefs)
Heretical! What made you say that? When I was a teen I could see two
(or three?) versions of the quran on the shelf of my home. Their
differences were insignificant (and not at all similar to the
differences of the bibles) but they differed. At least I could figure
out the difference in verse numbers by myself: some verses have been
merged in one in a version or divided in two in another. I was shown
some differences in the words themselves too. Still my parents claimed
that Quran is the unaltered word of god. They reasoned with me that the
differences of words are due to the different methods of writings that
were implemented by different tribes at that time. To those tribes
these words all had the same meaning. They said that the differences
are not alterations but were existed from the very birth of the Quran.
But is there a concrete proof to that?
I still haven't made too much scholarly investigation in the matter but
when the quran speaks about "Scripture" or "Book" or the like, I don't
believe it is strictly talking about the written texts but the
revelations, the commandments and indeed the teachings.
Also suppose that his beliefs are heretical, I still cannot remember
you ever proved him wrong anywhere. Now if you want to prove that
qurans is fully preserved in "words, ayahs, Surah's" why don't you come
along and prove it. I will be glad to hear your proof.
Robert
The original claim at the beginning of this thread was that all texts
of the Koran are perfect, there being no variation between them. I have
shown that this is false. You shift from this claim by insisting that
the Koran is oral, not written and you tacitly imply that the claim of
perfect transmission applies to recitals of the Koran - rubbish.
The distinction between the differing readings of the Koran, due to
different vowel pointings which you refer to, has been dealt with; the
differences I refer to, as has been made clear, are not these, but are
consonantal. There ARE variations.
You imply that Western scholars are "intellectual thieves" but do
nothing to support your innuendo; you produce no evidence that you have
read the paper I advert to.
Your claim that the Koran could be reconstructed from the memories of
the Muslims in one village is certainly exaggerated, and raises the
question as to why the Koran was ever, then, committed to writing:
wasn't that a profanation? However, the Christian Faith pre-existed the
New Testament, the latter depending on the former and not vice versa;
and the Christian Faith and the Christian Church would continue to
exist even if all Bibles were destroyed.
Abdalla Alothman
mugz wrote:
> IBN ABI DAWUD, Kitab al-Masahif, Page 17: Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I
> recited from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had
> perfected before Zaid ibn Thabit had embraced Islam!"
>
> Mas'ud even went further, and implied Ziad and Uthman were corrupting
> the Quran, (just like Muslims today accuse Jews and Christians of
> having corrupted the Bible):
>
> IBN ABI DAWUD, Kitab al-Masahif, Page 15: Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I
> acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when
> Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired
> directly from the messenger of Allah?"
The first hadeeth has nothing to do with ibn mas'ood favoring himself
over zaid bin thaabit (radhiy Allahu 'anhum ajma'een).
The second hadeeth is most likely inserted. See ibn alqayyim's
and al'aTHeem abaadi's comments on it. Usually, ibn abi
dawood does not mind using weak chains at all (weak chains
have their usefulness in the sciences of the hadeeth) -- and this
is very clearly stated at the books introduction, which can be
read here:
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=8&book=61
Comments from al-imaam ibn alqayyim can be found here:
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=22&book=496
And here, for al'aTHeem abaadi:
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=22&book=1057
The way you misused those sources (or probably "your source," Puin)
is shameful.
> IBN SA'D, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, Page 444: Ibn Mas'ud gave
> a khutba (sermon) in Kufa and declared: "The people have been guilty of
> deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according
> to the recitation of him By Him besides Whom there is no god!"
This hadeeth is quite famous, but among the scholars of
grammar and before they show the distortions made by the people
of koofa. These distortions were made on the Arabic language.
So ibn mas'ood was rebuking the people of koofa for distorting
the langauge. Because of those people, the khaleefa 'uthman (r)
made the 'uthmaani drawing, which was later perfected by abu
al-aswad al-du'ali and 'ali bin abi Taalib (k). When 'uthmaan didn't
want to fight those people, 'ali (k) did. And 'abdullaah bin mas'ood
used to be aggressive towards them.
> There are also many references in the Hadith that address the arguments
> between Uthman and Zaid as to how the Quran should be writen, such as:
>
> SUNAN ABU-DAWUD BOOK 3, Number 785: Yazid al-Farisi said: I heard Ibn
> Abbas say: I asked Uthman ibn Affan: What moved you to put the (Surah)
> al-Bara'ah which belongs to the mi'in and the (Surah) al-Anfal which
> belongs to the mathani in the category of as-sab'u at-tiwal and you did
> not write "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful"
> between them?
This hadeeth has a continuation. That's not the end of it, but it's the
typical dishonesty of showing half-truths that comes from jealous
christian missionaries. Nobody, including ibn 'abbas, went against
'uthmaan bin 'affaan.
> So, one really needs to look no further than the history of the Quran
> as written by Muslims themselves, to see clearly that there was huamn
> influence, and more than just 'a little'.
Sure, go to Islamic sources regarding this topic:
1. annashr fi al qiraa-aat al'ashr (all about the ten readings)
An old book on the topic.
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=46&book=2674
2. almadkhal fi 'ilm alqiraa-aat (An Introduction to the Sciences
of the Readings):
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=46&book=2764
Go tell "your sources" (Puin) to educate himself, and perhaps you
can also get one thing or two. Those "sources" are more reliable
and credible than yours.
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
"Abu Hamza" <ali...@sunnipath.com> wrote
>> Are these not the teachings of the Quran?
Or is it your contention that the words, ayas, surahs have no meaning?
Strange fellow!
> Preservation of a text and preservation of its teachings (its meanings)
are two different things. Cant you understand that ? You said that (in
any case) the claim of preservation of Qur'an only applied to its
teaching. This statement is false, heretical and dangerous as, if
accepted it will allow people to challange ayahs/verses which don't
suit their whims. As every kid knows and believes, the text of Qur'an
is preserved entirely along with its meaning (in the form of Sunnah).
Comment:-
Did you not understand that the Quran was a revelation and then a recital.
And that the Quran according to its own words is
"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation in the hearts of those who
are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save the
wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24
"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with a right
reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieves in it, those are the
losers." 2:121
Is it difficult for you to understand that if the words are meaningless to
you
or have a wrong meaning then you do not have the Quran,
but it is preserved in those who understand it.
Are you a worshipper of the paper and ink Quran or of Allah?
>> I did not know I was a heretic!
> This is one of your heretical beliefs. Another is that Jews/Christians
are not required to convert to Islam and profess belief in the
Prophethood of Muhammad (s.a.w)
Comment:-
Did you not understand that the religion brought by all the Messengers of
Allah
are Islam?
Did you not read in the Quran and understand:-
"Say, O people of the scriptures, ye have naught of guidance till ye observe
the Torah and the Gospels and that which was revealed unto you from your
Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain
to increase the rebelliousness and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not
for the disbelieving folk. Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last day and
does right, there shall no fear come upon them nor shall they grieve."
5:68-69
And what are the implications of:-
"And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger proclaiming: Serve
Allah and shun false Idols. Then some of them there were whom Allah guided
and some of them there were upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in
the land and see the nature of the consequences for the deniers. " 16:36
"Lo, those who believe, and those who are Jews and Sabaeans and Christians -
whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does right - there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve." 5:69
"Say O People of the Scriptures, come to an agreement between us and you
that we shall worship none but Allah and that we shall ascribe no partners
unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for Lord besides Allah. And
if they turn away then say: bear witness that we are they who have
surrendered unto Him." 3:64
"They are not all alike. Of the people of the Scriptures there is a staunch
community who recite the revelations of Allah in the night season, falling
prostrate before Him. They believe in Allah and the Last Day and enjoin
right conduct and forbid indecency, and vie with one another in good works.
They are of the righteous." 3:113-114
"And unto thee (Muhammad), We have revealed the scriptures with the Truth,
confirming whatever scripture was before it and a watcher over it. So judge
between them by that which Allah hath revealed and follow not their desires
away from the truth. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced
out path. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He
may try you by that which He hath given you He made you different. So vie
with one another in Good Works. Unto Allah ye will return, and He will then
inform you of that wherein ye differ." 5:48
"Unto each nation ( community or group) have We given sacred rites which
they are to perform; so let them not dispute with thee over the matter but
summon them unto thy Lord. Lo, thou indeed followest right guidance." 22:76
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
If you are interested to know about the Christian writers who
registered the Arab incursions in the seventh century you will find
discussions of them in the work of Patricia Crone.
Your misconceived comments on the New Testament are a fallacious
distraction from my assertion of the lack of early evidence for the
Koran.
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
capsaicin
> But fact is that we do not know what happened. There is only orally
> transmitted, very doubtful information about this subject. And there is
> no Quran that we can hold in our hand that dates further back than 750
> and even these copies are incomplete and their contents have not been
> made public.
A scenario? Isn't the whole idea behind the quran not being preserved
just a SCENARIO? Aren't you claiming that just because there is no
quranic manuscript dated before 750 (and lets suppose that its true)
then the correctness of quran cannot be verified? Isn't it just a
scenario, to claim that There must have been some manuscripts different
from the quran from before that age?
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Alothman Dec 30
>
> The original claim at the beginning of this thread was that all texts
> of the Koran are perfect, there being no variation between them. I have
> shown that this is false. You shift from this claim by insisting that
> the Koran is oral, not written and you tacitly imply that the claim of
> perfect transmission applies to recitals of the Koran - rubbish.
I think that what hat you say IS the rubbish.
The title of the book is self explanatory: qurr-aaan, a recital;
something that was read, not written. If you jump up and down
you wont change that fact. Quran = recital not writal. The Messenger
(s) did not receive a book like those who did in your holy books;
it's quite different.
> The distinction between the differing readings of the Koran, due to
> different vowel pointings which you refer to, has been dealt with; the
> differences I refer to, as has been made clear, are not these, but are
> consonantal. There ARE variations.
What you call variations has nothing to do with the vowels. That's
someting other fools have made and you're simply repeating it. A
reading is another way of reading the Quran. The first approval is
related to the seven letters and it comes from directly from the
Messenger (s) and from a revelation. The second approval is
the seven readings that stemmed after the compilation of the
Quran.
Scholars of the sciences of the Quran, and scholars of general
have agreed that the Quran is not just one reading, it's all the
authentic readings. And yes, a lot of miracles can be extracted
from those readings.
As for the silly claim of vowels, that's simply non-existent in the
language used by the Quran or all the authentic readings. But
we offer you to prove your claim if you are truthful. This claim
comes from a person who doesn't know Arabic and who relies
on translations to understand the Quran.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. When I say
you, it's too much for you, but I really mean the weak sources
you rely on.
You think you can teach us our religion, but you can't. You're only
wasting your time and you wont go anywhere, save being a joke
in Usenet's archives.
> You imply that Western scholars are "intellectual thieves" but do
> nothing to support your innuendo; you produce no evidence that you have
> read the paper I advert to.
No, you are mistaken. What you said as "findings" you are implying
it is attributed to your scholars. But in reality, the topic is part of
the
sciences of the Quran and Muslim scholars have wrote plenty about
it at an age when the west -- and that might be a sad fact -- woke up
without washing their mouths or faces. You remember the dark
ages, don't you?
We refer you to what you wrote:
"As I said, none of the variants is of religious significance, but
these
scholarly findings put paid to the myth of the miraculous transmission
of the Koran."
What he tries to attribute to western scholars as "these scholarly
findings" are well established facts and fields of study in the
sciences
of the Quran that Muslim scholars have discussed and wrote about
centuries ago. This is an attempt of intellectual theft. But if you
have
no shame, do whatever you like.
> Your claim that the Koran could be reconstructed from the memories of
> the Muslims in one village is certainly exaggerated, and raises the
> question as to why the Koran was ever, then, committed to writing:
> wasn't that a profanation?
No. Recording the Quran was a secondary form. Writing it is as good
as recording a voice of its reader.
> However, the Christian Faith pre-existed the
> New Testament, the latter depending on the former and not vice versa;
> and the Christian Faith and the Christian Church would continue to
> exist even if all Bibles were destroyed.
There is no proof for the above. And it is not the topic of this
newsgroup. We don't care about the Christian "faith" or any
of that.
Abdalla Alothman
capsaicin
> Well, perhaps then you should have read my other post as copies of the
> Quran that vary significantly from the one you have now have been
> found:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin
Just as Faiz already mentioned there is no reason for the Yemeni
government to prevent the publication of Puin's discoveries if they
have allowed him to assume the role of examining the texts? Couldn't
the Yemenis themselves examine the texts after they were restored? Or
do you say that they were unable to read the manuscripts? Or that they
didn't know arabic as good as Puin? Doesn't it mean that there wasn't
something of such importance in these discoveries? At least not as
important as the article suggests.
This can be backed up with this extract:
"However, in an earlier, more scholarly article (Puin 1996), Puin
describes the variations he found , usually in the order of verses, and
matching the variations already described by Islamic scholars."
Also read the single post in the discussion section.
All these aside, isn't this claim that the Yemenis government didn't
allow the publication of the texts is just an assumption and an
invented scenario? I personally cannot put too much faith in these
unless I see the differences suggested, myself.
christo...@onlinehome.de
Irfan (faiz....@gmail.com) wrote:
> I gave you a proof that no one--I repeat no
> one--can deny---and that is that the Qur'an we see today is ONLY one
> and has been exactly the same throughout the last 1400 hundered years.
That's plain and simple humbug.
Even Islamic orthodoxy knows 7, 10 or even 14 "canonical" variants of
the Koran.
Beyond these generally known variances the actual variant readings,
indeed, fill some volumes bigger than the Qur'an itself. I already time
and again have pointed in earlier postings to this scholarly collection
of variant Qur'an readings:
Abd al-'Āl Sālim Makram (wa) Ahmad Mukhtār `Umar (I'dād): Mu'jam
al-qirā'āt al-Qurānīyah, ma'a maqaddimah fī qirā'āt wa ashhar
al-qurrā'. I-VIII, al-Kuwayt: Dhaat as-Salaasil, 1st edition
1402-1405/1982-1985.
In the meantime a new edition of this book from the publishing house
Al-Obeikan, Riyadh, namely the 3rd edition of 1997, now organized in --
together with the register -- six volumes, is available. The set of
volumes has got the ISBN 977-232-101-7.
However even this voluminous collection does not contain all variants
we know from documental evidence or from quotations by Muslim scholars.
Only a critical edition of the Koran would show us all the variances
which have to be taken into account in Koran scholarship. Eventually we
will get such a critical edition.
Most illuminating is the comparison of the Cairo Koran edition,
nowadays most often referred to, with the old Tashkent or Samarqand
Koran (which naive people believe is one of the Korans the Caliph
Uthman is reported to have produced and sent to the main cities of his
empire). Everybody can do this comparison himself and find the
occasionally amusing differences at:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/perfect-koran/A1.htm#AppendA
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Abdalla Alothman
>
> Even Islamic orthodoxy knows 7, 10 or even 14 "canonical" variants of
> the Koran.
They are called READINGS.
> Beyond these generally known variances the actual variant readings,
> indeed, fill some volumes bigger than the Qur'an itself. I already time
> and again have pointed in earlier postings to this scholarly collection
> of variant Qur'an readings:
>
> Abd al-'Āl Sālim Makram (wa) Ahmad Mukhtār `Umar (I'dād): Mu'jam
> al-qirā'āt al-Qurānīyah, ma'a maqaddimah fī qirā'āt wa ashhar
> al-qurrā'. I-VIII, al-Kuwayt: Dhaat as-Salaasil, 1st edition
> 1402-1405/1982-1985.
Of course the result will be large. What is Heger pointing to? a
Mu'jam -- sort of a large encyclopedia (6 volumes) that includes
the recitation ways, the core readings, biographies of the narrators,
dictative styles, grammar, tashkeel (i.e. tajweed symbols), and much
more. So it will be large. If we collect all the information about the
qiraa-aat, they say: IT IS LARGE! If we don't, they say: THEY ARE
HIDING SOMETHING!
By the way, what you wrote above as:
ma'a maqaddimah
should be: ma' muqaddimah (haha...)
The western quran scholar still can't read Arabic as he was
when we first met him years ago.... BUT he thinks he can
criticize the Quran. Sure, why not!
And: fī qirā'āt
should be: fi alqiraa-at (missed the al or couldn't read it?)
This encycopedia contains all readings, the authentic and the
inauthentic. It's an important source here in Kuwait University
(yes, the college of sharee'ah).
> However even this voluminous collection does not contain all variants
> we know from documental evidence or from quotations by Muslim scholars.
We remind you that it's called a READING. This shows that the
so called Christian Quran scholars (what a joke) also twist what
others say. We call it qiraa-ah, they change it to "variant" just like
they change their own holy books.
> Only a critical edition of the Koran would show us all the variances
> which have to be taken into account in Koran scholarship. Eventually we
> will get such a critical edition.
All the readings are available in printed and audio format. If you
try to get almajd satellite channel or IQRA channel, you will find
numerous DAILY programs that can teach you to follow the authentic
readings. These readings have been available throughout the
centuries. So what's preventing you from making your critical
edition, if we may ask? No time? Or lazy? Or can't figure out where
and how to start? Maqaddimah... what a funny joke.
Abdalla Alothman
Robert
You demonstrate that you are acquainted with the encyclopaedic
collection of Koranic variants that Christoph Heger referred to, yet
you rejected my assertion that these variants existed.
Similarly your posting in its negative hectoring and abrasive rhetoric
seems to refute Heger's case without in any way doing so. Have you any
regard for truth concerning the Koran?
There ARE variant texts of the Koran; its transmission was NOT
miraculously perfect.
Abu Hamza
capsaicin wrote:
> Heretical! What made you say that?
he·ret·i·cal
adj.
1. Of or relating to heresy or heretics.
2. Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from
established beliefs or standards.
Now, what are/have been the established beliefs about the preservation
of Qur'an in the Islamic world? what the established beliefs about the
essentials of Islam (being a Muslim) or that of Kufr (being a Kafir) or
that of attaining Falah, success in the afterlife. Isn't it true that
the preservation of Quranic text (not just the teaching) is an
established belief and any belief in the possiblitity of any
alterations or errors by humans is a departure from orthodoxy and
considered heretical ? Isn't it a fact that belief in all messengers is
an absolute requirement and distinguishing between them by believing in
some and rejecting others is considered plain Kufr?
4:150. Those who deny Allah and His apostles, and (those who) wish to
separate Allah from His apostles, saying: "We believe in some but
reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,-
4:151. They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared
for unbelievers a humiliating punishment.
Altway
"Abu Hamza" <ali...@sunnipath.com> wrote
>> Heretical! What made you say that?
> he斟et搏搾al adj.
1. Of or relating to heresy or heretics.
2. Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from
established beliefs or standards.
Comment:-
Established belief may be wrong.
It depends also on what a sect believes. The belief of others is heretical.
"Heresy" and "Heretical" have no connection with Truth.
> Now, what are/have been the established beliefs about the preservation
of Qur'an in the Islamic world? Isn't it true that
the preservation of Quranic text (not just the teaching) is an
established belief and any belief in the possiblitity of any
alterations or errors by humans is a departure from orthodoxy and
considered heretical ?
Comment:-
Let me ask you:-
Where does your belief come from if it is not a teaching? Do you make up
your own beliefs?
Is it part of the teaching of the Quran that the teaching and the text are
different?
Or are they aspects of the same thing or are they connected?
Is it a teaching in the Quran that the text will be preserved without the
teaching?
Or vice versa?
What do you think the Quran is: Is it a revelation or a recitation or a book
of paper and ink.
Were there no marks added to the original written Quran?
Do you think the Quran consists of empty words?
If someone does not understand the text do you think they have the Quran?
But let me make it clear what I mean by the teaching of the Quran, though I
have
stated this several times before:-
The teaching lies in:-
(a) the meaning of the verses, suras and the whole Quran in context and at
several levels.
(b) the wording - the words selected and the way they are inter-related to
form the verses etc.
(c) the rhythm of the recitation
(d) the events to which they relate.
(e) the understanding of the person who reads them and makes the necessay
effort to think and meditate and apply.
(f) the practices to which it gives rise to and their effects.
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdalla Alothman
>
> You demonstrate that you are acquainted with the encyclopaedic
> collection of Koranic variants that Christoph Heger referred to, yet
> you rejected my assertion that these variants existed.
That's because of the deliberate ignorance you project. You
call it variance, knowing that they should be called readings.
There's a message in this thread where we replied to the character
called "mugz." At the end of our message we provided the reader
with a list of books, the first one happens to be about TEN READINGS
(and it's one of the oldest sources dating centuries). So your claim
that we "rejected your assertions" is only because they are so far
from being accurate.
> Similarly your posting in its negative hectoring and abrasive rhetoric
> seems to refute Heger's case without in any way doing so. Have you any
> regard for truth concerning the Koran?
I try to stick as much as I can to what's given to me. My
replies would usually be limited to what the opponents
provides.
As for Heger, you should understand that he is lightyears ahead
of you. But his skills are still weak -- we just demonstrated some
of that.
> There ARE variant texts of the Koran; its transmission was NOT
> miraculously perfect.
First: The Quran is not a text. Try to get that straight. It's
clearly called a Quran (or Koran) which means that it's
a recital. So saying "variant texts of the Koran" to imply
the existence of more than one Quran is very equivalent
to saying "Ocean creatures that live in the desert." It's silly.
Even in this age, there are more than one style to representing
the Quran as text. The 'uthmaani style is the most popular, but
there's also the dictative (imlaa-ee) style. Which many attackers
don't know of.
The text in the dictative style is totally different from the 'uthmaani
style used in the maSaaHif, yet it is 100% correct. For example, the
'uthmaani style does not use dotting on the final YA (letter y),
while the dictative style does. To you that's variant text, to us it is
not. And by the way, the imlaa-ee (dictative) muS-Haf, which is
available in electronic format, is less than 3 years old. Did we worry
about VARIANT TEXTS? No. Why? Because the Quran is a recital.
One might say: "Why do you people have different textual standards
for the Quran?"
We say: It depends on the usage. If my "usage" is to search and
manipulate the text in some way, the imlaa-ee muS-Haf is perfect
for me. If I want to learn how to recite, the 'uthmaani muS-Haf is
perfect for me.
Consider the following aaya, for example:
55:44. They will go between it (Hell) and the boiling hot water!
The last word in that aaya (in Arabic) is: "aaan"
In the 'uthmaani muS-Haf, it is written as (Might not appear
properly):
ءان
In the imlaa-ee muS-Haff which is available on the net, it is
typed as:
آن
To you, that's variant text. To us it is not. Of course the words
we provided above are related to only ONE riwaaya: HafS through
'aaSim.
The ignorant critic might say: "OH! But having more than one
standard is not related to the readings of the Quran!!"
We say: Aren't you talking about variant texts? The 'utmaani and
the imlaa-i standards are variant texts! And they show that your
concepts are wrong, and that you should understand that the Quran
is a recital.
Secondly: The transmission of the Quran exceeded perfectness,
and those who cannot reach the grape would say, "Oh! It's so
bitter!" And yes, the readings of the Quran are miraculous.
Our conclusion: What you say is nonsense. (Same applies to mugz
and Heger).
Abdalla Alothman
christo...@onlinehome.de
Abdalla Alothman gave a fairly harmless example of an orthographic
variance of the Koran text:
> Consider the following aaya, for example:
>
> 55:44. They will go between it (Hell) and the boiling hot water!
>
> The last word in that aaya (in Arabic) is: "aaan"
>
> In the 'uthmaani muS-Haf, it is written as (Might not appear properly):
>
> ءان
>
> In the imlaa-ee muS-Haff which is available on the net, it is typed as:
>
> آن
>
> To you, that's variant text.
It *is* a variant and a witness of an orthographic reform (namely the
introduction of the hamza), interesting in itself, but apparently of no
variance in the meaning.
It is however easy to present an example where the meaning is totally
changed when going over to another - also traditional - reading:
In surah 35:28 we read
"Innamâ yakhshâ llâha min 'ibâdihi l-'ulamâ'u."
A standard translation (according to Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and
Muhammad Muhsi Khan, e.g.) is:
"It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear
Allah."
or something like that.
Now it hardly seems understandable that among the servants of God only
"those with knowledge" (as Al-Hilali and Muhsi Khan translate
'ulamâ'u) are said to fear him, since to fear him is the quality which
makes a person a servant of God. It's rather blasphemous to think that
only say scholarly people should be able to fear God properly.
Furthermore, the term "slave of God" has a positive connotation in the
whole Qur'an, as far as I see. As slaves of God they cannot lack the
"fear of God", and "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"
(This sentence from the psalms isn't present in the Qur'an verbally,
but the sense of it surely is present in it.) Therefore the antithesis
between both groups is not understandable.
That, however, doesn't seem to be the original meaning of the sentence.
One only has to realize that the verb "khashiya" in its genuin and
original meaning is to understand as "to fear for a person", "to care
for a person merciful", "to be troubled because of a person" in
accordance with the meaning of the cognate words in Hebrew and
Jewish-Aramaic. This meaning of "khashiya" is present in old Arabic
texts, too. Only subsequently "khashiya" got the meaning of "fear",
"fear of", too.
Of course, it's impossible to think that the "'ulamaa'" would fear for
God with sorrows and mercy! Not the "'ulamaa'" are fearing for God, but
God in his mercy is fearing for the "'ulamaa'", since he fears that due
to their haughtiness they would miss the paradise. We only have to
change the role of the subject and the object of "yakhshaa", thus
restoring the more natural order of succession of both. Actually, the
order of succession of predicate, accusative object, subject in the
traditional understanding of the sentence is rather odd, the by far
more natural one is predicate, subject, accusative object, as I propose
to understand the sentence.
Consequently, we have to translate:
"God fears among his servants especially for the 'ulamâ'."
This infers that we have to read surah 35:28 as:
"Innamâ yakhshâ llâhu min 'ibâdihi l-'ulamâ'a."
This variance, indeed, is a traditional one. It is also to be found (as
No. 7218, if I recall correcty) in the already mentioned scholarly
collection of variant Koran readings by ‘Abd al-‘Âl Sâlim Makram
(wa) Ahmad Mukhtâr ‘Umar (I‘dâd): Mu‘jam al-qirâ’ât
al-qurânîyah, ma‘a muqaddimah fî l-qirâ’ât wa ashhar
al-qurrâ’. I–VIII, al-Kuwayt: Dhât as-Salâsil, 1st edition
1402–1405/1982–1985. The authors present three authorities
(“qurrâ’”, “readers”), namely Abu Hanîfa, Abu Hayat and
‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, as witnesses for this deviant reading.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Abdalla Alothman
> Greetings to all,
>
> Abdalla Alothman gave a fairly harmless example of an orthographic
> variance of the Koran text:
The reader should understand where the dilemma lies when the
so called "Western Quran Scholars" say "variance of the Koran
text." To us,
"variance of the Koran text"
means a textual formulation of a known or popular standard, such
as the 'uthmaani standard and the imla-aai standard. To those
would-be scholars, the statement includes the standards AND the
readings of the Quran. The standards are man made, but the readings
are not. They mix it altogether to make sense of their agenda which
is meaningless whether it's naked or whether they decorate it with
excessive nonsense.
> It *is* a variant and a witness of an orthographic reform (namely the
> introduction of the hamza), interesting in itself, but apparently of no
> variance in the meaning.
We know it is variant, but it does not apply to the Quran, which is
a recital. It affects the written format of the Quran. And as we
explained many times: the Quran is not a text; it is a recital.
For example, the Muslim can take a piece of paper that contains
the following:
56:1. When the Event (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) befalls.
.. anywhere he wants, including the toilet.
But it is not permissible to take the following text (as it is)
everywhere:
56:1. ithaa waqa'at alwaaq'ah
or:
إِذَا وَقَعَتِ الْوَاقِعَةُ
(الواقعة:١)
Because it is a valid representation of the words of the Creator (TT).
What Heger calls "orthographic reform" is his own attempt to twist
the issue towards his agenda. The fact is that textual representation
of the Quran as followed by the imlaa-ee standard is not a "reform,"
because it serves a different application than that of the 'uthmaani
standard. We explained this issue in a mailing list for Arab [software]
developers and enthusiasts:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40arabeyes.org/msg03770.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40arabeyes.org/msg03761.html
In summary, the issue of applying different standards (i.e., the
imlaa-ee
or the 'uthmaani) has different applications. The 'uthmani standard is
a perfect standard to learn the principles of tajweed and reciting the
Quran, while the imlaa-ee standard, for example, is a perfect standard
for deploying certain manipulations on the Quran such as searching
the Quran with a given regular expression (regex), or handling unmarked
(i.e. without diacritical marks) search strings to find the equivalent
marked results.
We will give a case to make this clear for the technically unoriented
(like the western Quran scholars many others):
1. Searching the Quran with a regular expression:
\\sق[]{0,4}[^ا]ل[]{0,4}\\s
The above is a regular expression that might not appear correctly
(the rendering of the text) because it contains Arabic and non-Arabic
characters. Basically, the regular expression is a search string that
says:
"I'm looking for a word that starts with the letter qaaf after a
space (\s), followed by a set of diacritical marks that appear 0 to
4 times after the letter; but then, the next letter should not be an
Alif. The next letter is a Laam followed by 0-4 diacritical marks,
and finally there is a space (i.e., there is a another word after it,
not an end of line (no more words))."
Regular expressions consume a lot of physical (computational)
resource, so this regular expression -- although it is very simple --
will undergo through a lot of work by the machine. However, it
works perfectly, and it will match: qull, qeela, qeelihee, qeel,
qawlun, etc. But it will filter out all ayaat that only include
qaaloo,
qaala, qaalat, etc.
We can get such results with little work if the target text uses the
imlaa-ee standard which only uses the known diacritical marks,
such as fatHa, dhamma, tanween, shadda, etc.
If the target text used the 'uthmaani standards the programmer or the
user of the application has to take into account ALL the tajweed
symbols, and that will complicate the task for the programmer, the
computer, and the user. That is, the search routine must handle the
diacritical marks, and in addition it should also handle the stop,
continuation, link symbols; the sajda symbol and the sajda indicator
(a line beneath a word or set of words), all superscripted letters,
three
dots for selective pausing, etc.
This case assumes that a certain application is to be carried, and the
application is to search the Quran using a regular expression. For this
case, the imlaa-ee (dictative) standard is the best option to
manipulate
the contents of the Quran. However, what if the application is learning
how to read the Quran, when to stop, when to continue, when to
elongate a word, and when to shorten and so on? The 'uthmaani
standard is the best option.
The ignorant might say: And how come you people can make up all
those standards to your holy texts?
We say: The text is only a representation of the Quran. The Quran
is not a text. There are also other visual and audio representations
of the Quran. As we have explained in the URLs above, the similarity
of those standards are equivalent to a person who takes a painting
of a person, and another who takes a photograph of the same person.
Moreover, the imlaa-ee standard is the standard used when a student
at school is given the question in an exam to WRITE down the aaya
x-y from sura Z.
> "Innamâ yakhshâ llâha min 'ibâdihi l-'ulamâ'u."
This is a correct grammatically structured statement. To reach
the conclusion the scholars have agreed on, Heger is requested
to grammatically parse the statement. But he doesn't do that. Instead:
> A standard translation (according to Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and
> Muhammad Muhsi Khan, e.g.) is:
... he goes to translators and what they favor.
We say to Heger: Why did you learn Arabic? Isn't it so you can compete
with translators and REAL Muslim scholars? So why don't you
grammatically
parse the statement and see where it will take you? Or is it that you
don't
have the necessary skills yet?
Abdalla Alothman