Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
-
Very good post, HK
However, can you explain what was paper at the time of Moses ?
TO MOSES, GOD REVEALED THE TORAH, WHICH THEY WROTE ON SHEET OF PAPERS.
Peace
-
Peace
For a great discussion of this subject and things related, one should read The Qu'ran's Self-Image by Daniel Madigan. This book has a very simple goal. To understand what the Quran is according to the Quran. What does the Quran think of itself. Does the Quran consider itself a record of God's dialoge with man, or does it think it is the dialoge of God with man. Does it beleave itself to be every thing God has to say, or simply a gaurenty that God speaks. Madigan thinks that these questons will be answred if the Quranic meaning of the word "Kitab" is decepered(kitab is thought usally to mean book). Why he says the need for this quest. Because since the begining the Quran has been oral(he lists other reasons in the intro, the book is hard to explain I simply recommend you read it). The book demonstrates Madigin's immense intellegence. I dont want to show his overall results. But I will give a result of his concerning the date the Quran was canonised. In his book he never really directly tackles this issue. His book as stated before is meant to show as the title suggests is to find out the Quran's veiw of itself. It does this by analyasing the word Kitab as yoused in the Quran and other ancient sources. But he does inderectly takle this issue in the intro. He is of the opinon that Prophet Muhammed never bothered to codify the Quran (he gives his evidence). To him the Quran was a scripture writen on the hearts of men. For example many classical texts say that during the prophets time muslims had a few meager legal verses writen on leafs,bones,leather and other such materails. So what you get from Danial Madigan's book is that the Quran is a oral scripture. If you disagree with this then atlest read the book for his arguments. I find the idea of a Pre-Uthmanic caninosed Quran somewhat historaical far fecteced. If you still disagree with this and belive in Pre-Uthmanic manuscripts this book's insightfull arguments will still help increace your understanding. In fact I became a Quran only Muslim because of this book. This book showed me that Muslims belifs often contradict the Quran and that an idea is not nessecarily Quranic because muslims belive it to be.
Lareb
-
Peace Hafeez, Lareb, all,
While Lareb, I do plan to read this book you mention, I would like to add that the premise is not justified. Quran inscribed on the hearts of men is plausible on one stance but it has nothing to do with codification.
Good explanations Hafeez, however, point me to a verse in the Quran that EXPLICITLY states that "Torah" was "Revealed" to Moses.
-
Peace
It does. As the book shows early muslims considered the Quran a symbol. Early muslim law did not accept written evidence. Yet the Quran demands it in one verse. For Adultery stoning was used. Even though the Quran mandated flogging. Many laws and rules within the Quran were knowingly avoided. It was never considred the final word. It was merely a symbol of Gods affection for humans. In early Muslim belief its rules and laws were for Muhammed's time and community. It was a "jawab" or answer meant for Arabia. It was not meant for every time and place. In fact its position was debated. Meaning some early muslim considreded it a assurance that God speaks and cares about the world. That he will speak and has spoken. Yet some Muslims considered the Quran the final word. The second group was a minority. But eventully they became the majority. But they found the Quran mute on many important legal issues. This became a probelm. This issue concerning the Qurans ability to give satisfactory legal solutions went on. Also another probelm appered. If the Quran was for every age then it must have been recorded before time. This gave rise to the belief that the Um Kitab mentioned in the Quran was a source book for the Quran. This created many more probelms that are stated in the book. To solve these issues the sunna or Muhammed's example convenintly came along. The concept of inner and outward meanings was introduced. And many concepts found in the Quran were altered or taken out of focus. But the sunna created more confusion and generated more debate. What was the sunna? Was it to be found in hadiths or in the city of Madinah itself (Imam Malik held this view)? Did the Quran supersede it? Or did the sunna supersede the Quran. You might say what does all of this have to do with Pre-Utmanic manuscripts of the Quran? Alot. I was very inaccurate in saying he does not talk about the codifacation issue. A whole chapter is dedicated to this issue. It is very detaled. If you read the book it chapter 2. Tell us what you find.
Lareb
-
For Adultery stoning was used. Even though the Quran mandated flogging. Many laws and rules within the Quran were knowingly avoided. It was never considred the final word.
hello,
Could you provide evidence for that ?
Peace
-
Peace
Many books on Islamic law a few decades after Muhammad can attest to it. Also ancient fuquh and there works and trestises can amply show the conflict between the relation of sunna to Quran. And many sources show and give amply evidence for a avoidence of Quranic rules and norms. In fact a crude form of legal seculurism was begining. For example Abbiaseds jailed prisoners. They also made bails. And the way and manner in which the courts took place contradicted the Quran in many ways. Witness laws were very different than what the Quran dictactes. If you want to know any of these laws many works can be found. Eventully the Qurans position was estabilesed as a paramount. But as stated before this created probelms. So sunna came along. But what the sunna was confused many. To some like Imam Malik the sunna was a living breathing authority found in the "Amal e Madinih" or the practice of Madinih. To some like Imam Shafi it was found in the Hadith. To some the sunna could be disregarded like Imam Abu Hanifi. To some it was a authority on par with the Quran. Imam Shafi sealed it up with his risala aa work which gives facinating glimes into the probelm. Patrica Crone makes note of the blatent disregard for Quranic laws in Gods Caliph. To her it means that the Quran was little known to the masses. Another western scholar seconds her opinon. But in the book cited above it is thoght that this means the had less authority. Another scholar I think (not sure) Mcdonald thinks aswell. If you read Madigan's book look at the footnotes. Also a correcttion. Quranic canonisation is dealt extensively in the second part of chapter 1 and in the footnotes.
God bless
Lareb -
Peace Jonny
No brother. As I said early muslims would have followed the Quran during the prophet Muhammad's time. The context in which the Quran came brother is facinating. The arabs before having the Quran felt that they were out of God's plan. This idea was emerging because of a increase in monutheistic arabs. Jews had a scripture. Christans had a sripture. Yet Allah some how forgot the arabs. The Quran beatifuly answered this longing for a scripture and presented and introduced to the starveing desert arabs ethics, morality, brotherhood and kindness. It taught the arabs that senseless killing and murder were wrong. Inheriting women agianst there will was wrong. Worshiping useless unhelpful Gods was wrong. Being cruel was wrong. Anger in its violent form was wrong. Blind faith was wrong. In other words it taught them how to turn from a savage rough and cruel pot of tribes into a civilisesd people how influince the mediterrain and the world. And here my last sentence sums up the probelm. Islam is thought by us to be a Global religion alongside other universal religions. But the Quranic veiw of things is somewhat diffrent. Muhammad is a messenger to the arabs. I am not saying brother that you and me can not follow the Quran since both of us are not arabs. The Quran is a anti racist book. It is filled with egalitraism. In fact its Quranic egalitarinsim that won the arabs over to Islam. But we need to realise the Quran did not drop from the sky. It came peice by peice. To make long story short brother Quran was meant for the arabs. Just as Torah was for Jews. But we can still follow Al Quran. And to be more specific legally the Quran is tied intimately with the early muslim community of Mecca and Medina. This is way the Quran was more of a symbol of God than his word. A assurence that God was not some obscure figure who did not care about you. A assurence that God communicates with man. If you doubt all of this brother jonny a will ask you a qeustion. How did the hadith emerge. Your answer ( I might be wrong) is corruption. My answer is flexeble attitudes toward the Quran. If you are confused concerning mmy ideas you may ask me. I am open to qeuations.
Lareb
peace
-
Peace "L.Hu",
...Yet Allah some how forgot the arabs...
JK- I hope you meant this statement in reference to what the disbelievers thought of GOD since GOD never forgets and everything happens at an appropriate time. NOW you say that the Quran was only for the Arabs BUT this cannot be true. First of all the Quran focuses a great deal on correcting the corrupted Jewish and Christian beliefs as well. If you look at the OT you can see how it is filled with nonsense and absurdities. Then the Quran says that Muhammad was sent as a mercy to ALL NATIONS(wa ma arsalnaaKA illa rahmata lil 'ALAMEEN) in his time and there were more than Arabs just in his time too. So this cannot be true. Besides this the Quran generally addresses all mankind in many verses and 53 mentions clearly that this day GOD has perfected the system named Islam and also calling Muhammad the last of the Prophets i.e. those who deliver a Divine scripture. All this adds up and leads to the conclusion that the Quran is overall universal although it does mention various events in it which were applicable only at the particular times and it states so too. GOD Bless!
-
sorry for the off topic post,
two days ago i saw a documentary on national geography channel about quran... at the end of the documentary they said something i think is false is that quran was burned down and then later re-written in the 7th century...
in USA eastern time 900 pm-1100pm tuesday, august 5th the program "interpreting the quran" was broadcasted on natioanl geographic channel.
i think that documentary showed some truth about islam and some lies at the same time, probably biased research lies fabricated by atheists
Allah knows best!
-
Peace "mr. humble",
I found some videos on youtube in relation to "islam". Could you point out to me whether your claimed documentary is amongst them and which video and which PART EXACTLY mentions that the original Quran has been burnt? Thankyou very much and here is the list of videos
http//www.youtube.com/results?search_query=national+geographic+quran&search_type=&aq=f
GOD Bless! -
peace, "Jonny_k"
it was titled "interpreting the quran"
i am sorry to say..i didn't completely trust that video, it contained information which are a mixture of lies and truth about islam.
at first it showed how muslims interpret 2431(the verses about hijaab)
then it showed 532 and 533 contradict each other and the difference between "peaceful muslims" and "violent muslims"..although i disagree!
then at the end it showed how in 7th century they found this "pile of washed up quran" and how arabic writers "re-wrote" it...i think the whole thing was bogus..they probably want to dismiss the idea of a true religion!(they said many things which were, to me as a muslim, questionable...)
here is the national geographic link
http//ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2008/07/interpreting_the_koran.html
may peace be on you, Rifat
-
http//ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2008/07/interpreting_the_koran.html
-
Peace
I was reading a book called "The Muslim Jesus" by Tarif Khiladi. It confirmed my understanding. Heres a qoute "Early Islam-or "primitive Islam"...was a porous environment". Also concerning the Quran he says "As for the Qur'an...its status among believers in the early period was not comparable to what it later became. It seems not to have enjoyed any monopoly or major authority". And again Patrica Crone thought this meant the Quran was unknown to early muslim masses. But Mcdonald (or I think it was him) said this meant the Quran was less paramount. Meaning the Quran was perhaps overruled. In fact early sunnies thought the sunna could overrule the Quran. Joseph Scacht also accepted that the Quran had far less authority than now. The book I mentioned by Daniel Madigon deals with this topic in detail. If you do not want to buy the book (you shold I did) heres a perview
http//books.google.com/books?id=Fn2xu3npcUYC&pg=PP4&dq=Qur%27an%27s+Self-Image+Writing++Authority++Islam%27s+Scripture&sig=ACfU3U3q72FMQ_4k88d2CrnLf8dyrJH1Yw#PPR7,M1
-
Peace
I have decided to comment on the possibility of Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscripts. But before my comments I think revisonist history must be addresed. Many people on this
site have ideas about history that are quite unusally when compared to traditional acconts. I am not in any way saying that revisonist history is bad, or dabbling in it is
wrong. In fact condeming are amauter internet historians who have not grasped the rules of archeology and history would be condeming myself. In the days when I accepted
anything from this site, when I knew nothing about the rules of archeology and its limits, when I had no idea about documentry critism, and when I knew nothing about
philosophy I fully belived that the prophet Muhammed was from Northern Arabia, classical arabic was a fabrication, and the Quran's true context was Nabatia. When I matured
and realized the foolishness of my ways these ideas looked quite funny and laughable.
My denial of such ideas occured when I read Hoylands book (mistakenly used by revisionists but meant by the author to fight such ideas) Patrica Crone's unoffical indirect
renuncation of her belif that Muhammad lived in North Arabia and unofficail acceptance of Muhammad's life in Mecca. Also my understanding of history changed when I read
books concerning the field. In genaral my staments on this issue would create a lengthy post. Now to the Quranic manuscripts. If one says all reports from this period are false
(many are likily true) there existense proves a historacal memory in these so called fabricaters. They had no reason to lie. If you belive that they had reasons to lie that
means you do not really understand the context of these reports. They may have fabricated these reports to aknowlegde a certain commen historcal memory. It is clear that
maybe a Quran was never canosed until 48 years after the prophet died not 25. Why you may ask did the prophet not canonise the Quran. This qeustion lies at the heart of
what the Quran is.
Madigan's book convinced me of its position. All who can should read this book. Also other books by scholars and even books by the scholar Shafia can give answers. Shafia's
arguments suck.
So do not read it for some excellent arguments. Its polemic and attacks agianst other muslim groups in the second century of Islam (the book was writen in the second
century of Islam) are the valuble portions since they give insight into early Islam's sectarian flavour and peoples veiws at the time about the Quran. Any further questions
please ask me. Also if I sound arrogant im not. Writing as the Philosopher Socrates noted destroys speechs tone, meaning I am quite humble but because of my writing style I
may sound like a hauty fool. Again if you have any questions please ask.
God Bless
-
Sorry for attacking this thread (nobodys intrested in it any more) but I forgot to tell you something. John Burton belived the Quran was not a source of law untill the 800's. Meaning it had no legal authority after Muhammad's death even among the companions.
-
Peace
Again sorry for being the only person to particapate in this thread but Wansborgh also thought the Quran was not used legally and that its authority was meager at best. Althogh the idea is right the inference drawn by Wansborgh is totaly wrong. Since the Quran only starts to become a authoratative refrence after the 800's Wansborgh wrongly assumes the Quran to be a product of the 800's and of Iraq not of Arabia and the 600's. He thinks the Quran had evolved and was canonesed in 200 years. The inference may be wrong but his statement about the Qurans early authority is right and was confirmed years before by Joseph Scacht and Goldizer