Who Has Access to Samurqand/Tashkent Copy?
-
Peace Sabo,
I think the modern script of cairo 1924 was done according to oral transmission as well. So not only written manuscripts were the base for the modern print..
As a rule of logic, the older document takes precedent over anything that comes after...
I am not considering that the oldest document may be wrong because that would entail a total different set of criteria for verification which cannot be made available (unless you know some people who have been alive for over 1,400 years and we could coroborate their testimony).
-
Salam Layth,
I think the modern script of cairo 1924 was done according to oral transmission as well. So not only written manuscripts were the base for the modern print..
Best regards,
saboPeace sabo,
I was not aware of this but it does tend to indicate that my theory of corruption of some vowels in words can't be ruled out entirely.
I for one would be interested in the spelling of AL-MASJID-AL-HARAM in the Tashkent mushaf.
We need a publicly available version of this manuscript and should try to arrange an online one as a part of the work we carry out (though I hesitate to assume everyone see this as a priority). I've emailed the custodian almost a week ago but have yet to receive a reply. Maybe email is as slow as snail mail in Uzbekistan.
Regards.
-
Salaams Truth,
See the top line -centre for the MSJD.
This is a very very old quran.
http//goldkoran.mse.jhu.edu/htdocs/mrsid/kbin/show.pl?client=Koran&image=Koran.015v.sid
Salaams.
-
Peace layth,
As a rule of logic, the older document takes precedent over anything that comes after...
Why is that a rule of logic?
its just an old document which is not even complete. How can I guarantee how old it is? Aaahhh let a scientist examine it remotely and tell me, while i have no access to it? How can i guarantee that the writer of this particular version wasn't taking drugs or was just not accurate enough?
Well as a rule of logic, something which i can verify is, that I see and talk to people who memorize the Quran and they are not 1, 2 or 10 but they are literally thousands if not tens of thousands, and i met them personally, so I KNOW for fact that memorizing the Quran is possible, but i don't know if writing one single version of a manuscript can be accurate or not.
In many places of the Quran, the messenger is commanded to RECITE the Quran, but show me where he is commanded to spread the Quran in a written form. I think you are familiar with the verses which says to "itlou alquraan"
From your translation
27.91 ?I have been ordered to serve the Lord of this town that He has made restricted, and to Him are all things, and I have been ordered to be of those who surrender.?
27.92 ?And that I recite the Quran.? He who is guided is guided for himself, and to he who is misguided, Say ?I am but one of the warners.?So I have verified that the Quran can be memorized and i have verified that the messenger was reciting the Quran, and i have no solid proof that this tashkent copy is indeed an accurate version,
So can you review this "rule of logic" and tell me , where to find the rules of logic to study them???? roll
I am not considering that the oldest document may be wrong because that would entail a total different set of criteria for verification which cannot be made available (unless you know some people who have been alive for over 1,400 years and we could coroborate their testimony).
So where in the Quran's text is the criteria set? Why can not be an old document wrong? Where can this "rule of logic" be found, that an old document can not be wrong??
Peace and best regards,
sabo -
Peace Sabo,
Well as a rule of logic, something which i can verify is, that I see and talk to people who memorize the Quran and they are not 1, 2 or 10 but they are literally thousands if not tens of thousands, and i met them personally, so I KNOW for fact that memorizing the Quran is possible, but i don't know if writing one single version of a manuscript can be accurate or not.
That is not the criteria I would agree with...Even with the recitations you have more than one version (Hafs & Warsh).
For example, 14 is recited by Hafs as "Malik" (possesor) and by Warsh as "Maliik" (king)...Only one can be correct.
In many places of the Quran, the messenger is commanded to RECITE the Quran, but show me where he is commanded to spread the Quran in a written form. I think you are familiar with the verses which says to "itlou alquraan"
2948 is confirmation that the prophet had the Quran written in his lifetime (also 16110-111 where the ordering of the verses is spoken of).
So I have verified that the Quran can be memorized and i have verified that the messenger was reciting the Quran, and i have no solid proof that this tashkent copy is indeed an accurate version,
You have relied on oral transmission while ignoring the existence of at least two readings...That is not verifying.
So can you review this "rule of logic" and tell me , where to find the rules of logic to study them????
It is what your mind and heart accept as being sensible and defendable.
As I said, the oral transmission is not defendable, while the textual, if verified, would at least be a start.
So where in the Quran's text is the criteria set? Why can not be an old document wrong? Where can this "rule of logic" be found, that an old document can not be wrong??
What is your point of difference with the Tashkent copy? I would be interested to know why you reject it outright without giving it the benefit of examination or study?
-
Dear Layth,
I have nothing against the Tashkent Copy...But I have no access to it, nor can I examine if its for sure "the oldest available manuscript". Could you kindly tell me, how did you arrive to this conclusion, that it is the oldest manuscript? You know, what others say is not a fact to me until I can verify it for myself, am I right or not?
What if it is only 300 years old and someone at this time was just trying to immitate old arabic script? How can I guarantee that the writer of this "old" version didn't do any mistakes?
And the most important question, how can I examine this copy? Should I travel to Azerbijan?
I think also that with this version you can not resolve the conflicts between warsh and hafs, especially the one you mentioned, you know why? Because simply both versions are written with 3 consonants M, L and K
its a pronounciation issue which is not found in tashkent copy.So what is your proposal for resolving this conflict?
Thanks in advance
Best regards,
sabo -
Peace all,
I've been away from this thread and some interesting things have been discussed.
mz357 - thankyou for the link to the Gold Koran.
Now what I cannot establish is whether the "WAW" used as a long vowel was added later as a part of voweling the Koran or whether the long WAW was always written.
The dots differentiating similar letters are all later additions, as are the lines indicating short vowels. I am not familiar with the nuances of kufic script but the text of the Gold Koran is definately dotted and voweled indicating a later period for this at least. There's no information on whether the gold koran was dotted/vowelled after the gold leaf letters were applied etc.
To resolve this issue someone with more knowledge in kufic script could perhaps demonstrate that long WAWs are indeed written in an older manuscript - perhaps the Tashkent copy - and not a later addition.
Peace.
-
Peace Hussein,
I indicated that the Gold Koran appears to be a newer text as it has dots/vowels indicated in it.
An example from an older manuscript would settle the issue. I'd also be interested to see whether the long ALIF vowel is also a part of the older texts. There is ample evidence that thousands of extra alifs etc were added later also.
Regards.
-
Peace Sabo,
What if it is only 300 years old and someone at this time was just trying to immitate old arabic script? How can I guarantee that the writer of this "old" version didn't do any mistakes?
It may be as you say...I simply would cross examine some of its text with other text from around the same period (or claimed to be from the same period and in the same style) and then determine whether it is a corrupted copy or the real deal...
And the most important question, how can I examine this copy? Should I travel to Azerbijan?
I have photocopies that were provided some years ago courtest of Milan Sulc...If I recall, he managed to order it from one of the universities (I think it was in the US) who will furnish you with a photocopy for a fee...
Keep in mind that it is only parts of the Quran and therefore a full analysis using just that text is not possible.
I think also that with this version you can not resolve the conflicts between warsh and hafs, especially the one you mentioned, you know why? Because simply both versions are written with 3 consonants M, L and K its a pronounciation issue which is not found in tashkent copy.
So what is your proposal for resolving this conflict?
You have a valid question...The problems with Hafs and Warsh extend beyond simply pronounciation...
Peace Truth,
I indicated that the Gold Koran appears to be a newer text as it has dots/vowels indicated in it.
It is an old text...Those are not dots for the letters, neither do they appear to be even vowl marks (they seem to be more decorative than anything).
-
Peace Layth,
I'll quote you again,
As a rule of logic, the older document takes precedent over anything that comes after...
With this old document unfortunately you can do nothing, because all what you are left with are some shapes, no vocalization marks, no dots, so can you read it? You have to rely on the oral transmission, which you unkowningly accept, to understand this text, or else you won't be able to read anything, and you wouldn't be able to translate and print and publish anything.
Please kindly think about that
Best regards
sabo -
Peace Sabo,
Although the older text can be read and the letters worked out methodolically (with great time consumption and difficulty), your argument on the oral transmission is valid when dealing with the recitation methods/vowels for the written text...
However, when you have a variation in the text (such as an extra letter "waw") then this argument is no longer holds water as the recitation does not deal with additions or deletions to that text (only pronounciation).
