Old copies of Quran are different from today's?
-
http//www.scribd.com/doc/65398779/The-Orthography-of-the-Samarqand-Codex-By-A-Jeffery-and-I-Mendelsohn
-
http//www.scribd.com/doc/65398779/The-Orthography-of-the-Samarqand-Codex-By-A-Jeffery-and-I-Mendelsohn
Not to mention Layth's own article http//free-minds.org/which-quran ......which, to my knowledge, has not received much commentary on FM. It would seem many people, who claim to reject "unquranic tradition", still can't let go of the traditional islamic view of inspiration and preservation, which is strikingly similar to the unbelieving Jews at 4153. Perhaps it is time to rethink the theology behind Quranic preservation which has resulted, without exaggeration, in the deification of the arabic language. Moreover, how would those who would grab onto anything, coming from modern textual criticism, in order to "prove" biblical corruption, respond when the same approach is taken with the Quran? Among mainstrem Muslims, the answer would seem to be twofold From the laity there is a widespread belief in the "book from heaven" archetype and from the "scholars" there is a long history of acknowledging the variants (which word they dislike using) but resorting to their traditions to explain them, or declare them to be theologically meaningless. From the latter point of view, there is no difference between those who would accept Biblical inerrancy and those who accept Quranic inerrancy, both are making the same claims namely, that any differences are theologically meaningless.
Read this explanation http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html#2
The response is one long fallacy Begging the Question and circular reasoning! It's worth a read just to see how hypocritical and unfair their arguments are. One standard when dealing with the Bible another one when dealing with the Quran! I guess that's why we read in the article you cite "Unfortunately we are now dependent entirely on the Pissareff facsimile, as the original Codexhas disappeared. Indian Muslims had been much angered at the attention given to this Codex and is supposed deviations from the standard text, and had made many attempts to have the Codex given back to the Muslim community." Hopefully, this perverse theology of preservation and inspiration can be abandoned by those who would claim to only follow the Quran.
-
Not to mention Layth's own article http//free-minds.org/which-quran ......which, to my knowledge, has not received much commentary on FM. It would seem many people, who claim to reject "unquranic tradition", still can't let go of the traditional islamic view of inspiration and preservation, which is strikingly similar to the unbelieving Jews at 4153. Perhaps it is time to rethink the theology behind Quranic preservation which has resulted, without exaggeration, in the deification of the arabic language. Moreover, how would those who would grab onto anything, coming from modern textual criticism, in order to "prove" biblical corruption, respond when the same approach is taken with the Quran? Among mainstrem Muslims, the answer would seem to be twofold From the laity there is a widespread belief in the "book from heaven" archetype and from the "scholars" there is a long history of acknowledging the variants (which word they dislike using) but resorting to their traditions to explain them, or declare them to be theologically meaningless. From the latter point of view, there is no difference between those who would accept Biblical inerrancy and those who accept Quranic inerrancy, both are making the same claims namely, that any differences are theologically meaningless.
Read this explanation http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html#2
The response is one long fallacy Begging the Question and circular reasoning! It's worth a read just to see how hypocritical and unfair their arguments are. One standard when dealing with the Bible another one when dealing with the Quran! I guess that's why we read in the article you cite "Unfortunately we are now dependent entirely on the Pissareff facsimile, as the original Codexhas disappeared. Indian Muslims had been much angered at the attention given to this Codex and is supposed deviations from the standard text, and had made many attempts to have the Codex given back to the Muslim community." Hopefully, this perverse theology of preservation and inspiration can be abandoned by those who would claim to only follow the Quran.
There is no real variant. Its just the way the writing is made. The text are the same. Arabic does not have vowel letters and so that is where the confusion is.
Fragments from a large number of Qur'an codices were discovered in Yemen in 1972. They are now lodged in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a. Carbon-14 tests date some of the parchments to 645?690 AD. However, the text itself is somewhat younger, since carbon-14 estimates the year of the death of an organism, and the process from that to the final writing on the parchment involves an unknown amount of time. Calligraphic datings have pointed to 710?715 AD. It was common for parchment to be reused, older text having been shaved or washed off. This manuscript is yet to be recognised as a valid copy of the Qur'an
One of the three Qur'ans issued by Uthman is, according to Islamic tradition, preserved at Tashkent. The Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul is also considered to have been commissioned by Uthman.
According to the Hadith (Al-Bukhari, Vol6, #510), four Uthmanic manuscripts were prepared, after 653 AD and before Uthman's death 656 AD. Al-Kindi (d. 850) wrote in the early 3rd century AH, that only the Damascus copy remained and that was currently in Malatja. Various dates have been given for when the Damascus manuscript perished, and various manuscripts at different times have claimed to be the Damascus manuscript. The last of these remained alleged Damascus manuscripts with a traceable past was in Damascus until the fire of 1892.
There have also been large numbers of manuscripts alleged to be the Damascus manuscript ? or even one of the other perished manuscripts. However, there is no sufficient evidence to prove such a link.
Having studied early Qur'an manuscripts, John Gilchrist states "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death." He comes to this conclusion by analysing the state of development of the script used in the two of the oldest manuscripts available at the time he is writing, the Samarkand and Topkapi codices. The codices are both written in the Kufic script. It "can generally be dated from the late eight century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case." This technique has been criticised by some Muslim scholars, who have cited many instances of early Kufic and pre-Kufic inscriptions. The most important of these is 240m of Qur'anic inscriptions in Kufic script from the founding of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (692 AD). Inscriptions on rock Hijaaze and early Kufic script may date as early as 646 AD. Clearly early Kufic scripts existed in the seventh century. The debate between the scholars has moved from one over the date origin of the script to one over state of development of the Kufic script in the early manuscripts and in datable 7th Century inscriptions.
12th century Andalusian Qur'anAs for the copies that were destroyed, Islamic traditions say that Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, had preserved versions that differed in some ways from the Uthmanic text. Muslim scholars record certain of the differences between the versions; those recorded consist almost entirely of orthographical and lexical variants, or different verse counts. All three (Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali) are recorded as having accepted the Uthmanic text as final.
Uthman's version was written in an older Arabic script that left out most vowel markings; thus the script could be interpreted and read in various ways. This basic Uthmanic script is called the rasm; it is the basis of several traditions of oral recitation, differing in minor points. The Qur'an is always written in the Uthmanic Rasm (Rasm al Uthman). In order to fix these oral recitations and prevent any mistakes, scribes and scholars began annotating the Uthmanic rasm with various diacritical marks indicating how the word was to be pronounced. It is believed that this process of annotation began around 700 AD, soon after Uthman's compilation, and finished by approximately 900 AD. The Qur'an text most widely used today is based on the Rasm Uthmani (Uthmanic way of writing the Qur'an) and in the Hafs tradition of recitation, as approved by Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 1922. (For more information regarding traditions of recitations, see Qur'anic recitation, below.)
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Skeptical_scholars
-
There is no real variant. Its just the way the writing is made. The text are the same. Arabic does not have vowel letters and so that is where the confusion is.
Bigmo,
With all due respect, you are making my point.
Strictly speaking what you are saying is untrue, there are in fact differences in consonants; however, my point stands that the Quran is not a "book from heaven" in that it has a real textual history. As long as every single Quranic text/manuscript is not 100% identical, then you have acknowledged differences (variants). I agree with you that these variants are not irreconcilable or that they make an enormous difference, nevertheless they do exist. Once one admits of their existence, then one cannot, in principle, use this as a grounds for rejecting the Bible. Both books have a textual history, the question is do the differences matter theologically. I would answer no, although for the Quran, Layth would answer yes. I hope that point is not lost on you, or anyone else. Besides, viewing inspiration and preservation in this manner has resulted in the deification of the arabic language.
-
Bigmo,
With all due respect, you are making my point.
Strictly speaking what you are saying is untrue, there are in fact differences in consonants; however, my point stands that the Quran is not a "book from heaven" in that it has a real textual history. As long as every single Quranic text/manuscript is not 100% identical, then you have acknowledged differences (variants). I agree with you that these variants are not irreconcilable or that they make an enormous difference, nevertheless they do exist. Once one admits of their existence, then one cannot, in principle, use this as a grounds for rejecting the Bible. Both books have a textual history, the question is do the differences matter theologically. I would answer no, although for the Quran, Layth would answer yes. I hope that point is not lost on you, or anyone else. Besides, viewing inspiration and preservation in this manner has resulted in the deification of the arabic language.
Who told you I reject the Bible? However unlike the Koran the Bible is not God's words. In the Gospel Jesus was the word of God. Moses had God talk to him and many other prophets received their revelations differently, The Koran never refered to the Torah or Gospel as God's word. It refered to them as God's Books. In the Gospel Jesus was the Koran.
I don't care about identical or not. What I care about is text. The writing of the scripture is done by man but the choice of words in the Koran is by God. In the end a scripture's value is what we have possession of.
-
Peace,Thanks Hoppean for the link. Was an interesting read and I wonder what educated Muslims think about it.
Check out the islamic-awareness link I provided, I think that gives a good synopsis of the position taken by islamic theologians.
Also I have a question. Are you saying that Muhammad made these writings on his own and that God did not give it to him?
No I believe that both the Quran and the Bible are the word of God.
Peace
-
Who told you I reject the Bible?
I never said you did, sir.
However unlike the Koran the Bible is not God's words.
The Bible is God breathed/inspired. When you say the Quran is God's "words" what do you mean exactly? What is the difference between that, and being inspired?
In the Gospel Jesus was the word of God.
In the Quran too. And the kalimah Allah became flesh.
Moses had God talk to him and many other prophets received their revelations differently, The Koran never refered to the Torah or Gospel as God's word. It refered to them as God's Books.
Yes God's books, which need to be believed. It seems to me that there's a difference in your mind, but what is that difference according to you?
In the Gospel Jesus was the Koran.
I agree
I don't care about identical or not. What I care about is text. The writing of the scripture is done by man but the choice of words in the Koran is by God. In the end a scripture's value is what we have possession of.
Have I said anything to contradict this in any of my posts on this thread? My aim has been to point out inconsistencies in Muslim apologetics, which pretend to "expose" the Bible for variant readings while, either ignoring, or being ignorant of the textual history of the Quran. In no way do textual variants threaten inspiration, if anything they strengthen them....unless of course one has a "book from heaven" theology of inspiration, which is condemned in the Quran.
-
Peace,
Check out the islamic-awareness link I provided, I think that gives a good synopsis of the position taken by islamic theologians.
No I believe that both the Quran and the Bible are the word of God.
Peace
I read the link that you provided and I got a different conclusion from Layth's article. The one that you shared seems to promote the idea of there being the two pronounciations (Qira'at, and even the seven ahruf) while Layth's goes to prove that there is actually only one correct one (not that it has to be either of them). Interesting reads.
Also I am a bit confused. Do you take it that the Bible should be treated on the same level as the Qur'an? And when you say the Bible, which one are you talking about and what parts of it? For example, Catholics and Protestants have different Bibles and there are many Gospels and other books that have been excluded from both. I'm also confident that you have probably read Bart Ehrman's works as well.
Peace
-
Also I am a bit confused. Do you take it that the Bible should be treated on the same level as the Qur'an?
Yes I do.
And when you say the Bible, which one are you talking about and what parts of it? For example, Catholics and Protestants have different Bibles and there are many Gospels and other books that have been excluded from both.
In general terms, I accept what the Quran confirms as "between its hands", and historically that would be the Byzantine canons. However, whether one accepts the largest or smallest canon, it hardly makes any difference to sound doctrine. The canons in Christianity were not even considered closed until well into the 16th century.
As far as there being "many gospels and other books that have been excluded", well that is why the Quran "confirms what is between its hands", the accepted canons were inspired and therefore to be believed. While that which was outside of the canons was to be rejected. A book that had not yet been discovered, let alone ever been in use could hardly have been what is being referred to, in say 3113-115. At any rate, there are countless verses that could be brought to bear on this issue, I will leave you with this, 2946 Wala tujadiloo ahla alkitabi illa biallatee hiya ahsanu illa allatheena thalamoo minhum waqooloo amanna biallathee onzila ilayna waonzila ilaykum wailahuna wailahukum wahidun wanahnu lahu muslimoona
My own translation And do not argue with the people of scripture, except with that which is best, unless it be of those among them who are in the wrong. And say (all of you) We believe in that which is revealed to us, and in that which is revealed to you all, and our object of worship and your object of worship is the one and only, and to Him have we been made to have peace.
I hope that you, with me, are able to say and believe the words which are bolded and underlined!
I'm also confident that you have probably read Bart Ehrman's works as well.
I am familiar with Ehrman, however his criticisms are hardly new, they have been well known for centuries. I am curious, since there are plenty of "orientalist" scholars of the Quran, do you accept their criticisms and conjectures? Or do you realize that their world view will not allow for divine revelation, and therefore they will necessarily build their criticisms and theories on the assumption of a man made text?
Peace
-
I never said you did, sir.
The Bible is God breathed/inspired. When you say the Quran is God's "words" what do you mean exactly? What is the difference between that, and being inspired?
In the Quran too. And the kalimah Allah became flesh.
Yes God's books, which need to be believed. It seems to me that there's a difference in your mind, but what is that difference according to you?
I agree
Have I said anything to contradict this in any of my posts on this thread? My aim has been to point out inconsistencies in Muslim apologetics, which pretend to "expose" the Bible for variant readings while, either ignoring, or being ignorant of the textual history of the Quran. In no way do textual variants threaten inspiration, if anything they strengthen them....unless of course one has a "book from heaven" theology of inspiration, which is condemned in the Quran.
What I meant was that no scripture came down on any prophet we know of like the Koran. The Koran is God's word meaning the choice of words in the Koran is chosen by God from start to finish. In contains no words of Muhammad or his companions as the Gospel does. Jesus was God's word in the sense he was given the holy spirit. Jesus's hadith are considered divine inspiration. They carry the same weight as the Koran does. The Sunni and Shias claim Muhammad received a Jesus like revelation along with the Koran. This is of course rejected by me. In Moses case we know God conversated with Moses back and forth, something we never see in the Koran. God then gave Moses the Ten commandments. However the Old Testament is words chosen by men and not God although it had many God's words in it but the writing was done by men. We also know of no back and forth conversation that occurred with Jesus. Jesus preached when he was a child and even talked when he was a baby. There is no Koran like scripture that came to him. Other prophets had other various methods of revelation. Jeremiah would often have God speak through his mouth to the Israelites. But he was not given the holy spirit from birth as Jesus had.
In the end however we are only responsible for scriptures that come our way that we have possession of. How the Koran was like during Muhammad's time is not relevant since we were not there. What is relevant is how the Koran is available to us as it is now.