oldest fragments of Quran found
-
Why Persians?
Why not the Arabs themselves?
They have hundreds of motives to did itClassic Jafar. Mono-track mind as per usual.
Peace Wakas,
Do you know if anyone is studying this version to see if it matches the Hafs or Warsh?
I'm thinking primarily of Layth's article, Which Quran? where he tries to unearth which is the actual version we should be using.
And incidentally, what is your own view on the textual integrity of the Quran we have today?
-
I'm flabbergasted by this debate on Hafs Version or Warsh Version.
Why shouldn't we use Abdullah ibn Masud?s version? Or why not Ubay ibn Ka'b?s version?
I could name many other versions were it not that everyone of those, including the above, have been systematically destroyed by caliphs that authorized only their own compilation of Quran.
Whether you have a hafs or warsh version at home, your quran is uthmanic. Without Uthman, your Quran would look differently. But these were rashidun caliphs right? Corruption did not exist right? No caliphs were murdered because they disputed over the control over the religious aspects next to the political right?
I know the arguments but all the people had memorized quran and changing its content would have undoubtedly led to protests. This is a false argument for two reasons
- Quran was only known to the elite in the early days it was not widespread as it is today.
- Do you see similar protests in hardcore sectarian Islamic states when their religious leaders invent another fatwa? We never see those. When the religious power is controlled by an elite, it becomes a tool for totalitarian control of the masses. They get away with fatwa's they invented themselves, just like the early caliphs could hire some scribes to invent, alter or remove some Quranic verses for them.
For reference, a study of suspected verses resulting from a study of the Sanaa manuscripts among others see http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm
-
peace,
Peace Wakas,
Do you know if anyone is studying this version to see if it matches the Hafs or Warsh?
I'm thinking primarily of Layth's article, Which Quran? where he tries to unearth which is the actual version we should be using.
And incidentally, what is your own view on the textual integrity of the Quran we have today?
I don't know of anyone. I haven't looked into it.
I commented previously on Layth's article, if I recall correctly, that the variances demonstrated were minor and didn't change anything of significance and no research whatsoever was done on applying a systematic methodology to see if variances could be eliminated. The same thing could be said for whatever version is being discussed.
I think the textual integrity of Quran is very good, and the variances that I have seen are of no significance and no methodology has been applied (that I know of) to determine if the variances can be reduced or eliminated. However, I would say that I'm not so sure Quran promises to preserve every letter and dot, rather than it's message - I'd have to research that a bit more before concluding what it actually claims to preserve/protect etc.
Edited post shortly after posting, edits in italics.
-
Thanks for the concise response Wakas.
I've never looked into the question of Quranic integrity and have always taken it as a basic assumption. The many number matches, like dunya & akhera, man & woman, day, month, etc. would seem to indicate a very high level of integrity at the very least. But it does make one wonder about the efficacy of the huge exertions we make to decipher even the smallest grammatical and linguistic inflections if the text itself isn't 100% pristine...
-
Any skilled scribe hired by the caliphs would be able to either detect the number matches (if they are pre-existing to the compilation and manipulations) and keep them intact, or would be able to implement such number matches into a compilation to give it a halo of divine origin. I'm quite convinced the latter is true.
A modern example of this would be the novel Gadsby https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsby_(novel) this novel does not contain the letter E in its 50 000 words.
-
But it does make one wonder about the efficacy of the huge exertions we make to decipher even the smallest grammatical and linguistic inflections if the text itself isn't 100% pristine...
This is exactly how I feel about 90% of the debate on this forum. My exegesis of Quran is focused on comparing it to the Judeo-Nazarene writings, Torah, Gospel, and early christian writings to restore it's original content and message. This requires to take into account the many foreign words in Quran (Syrio-Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Hebrew).
A good example of this is the more than 50 pages long thread about inheritance in the Quran which is based on a text manipulation http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg376599#msg376599
Be warned though, if you step into this type of exegesis you are one step removed of becoming an apostate in Islam. If Islam is a faith you hold dear because you are going through difficult times, you may want to choose to remain ignorant instead of suffering an religious identity crisis on top of it. I say this in all sincerity not out of arrogance.
-
Any skilled scribe hired by the caliphs would be able to either detect the number matches (if they are pre-existing to the compilation and manipulations) and keep them intact, or would be able to implement such number matches into a compilation to give it a halo of divine origin. I'm quite convinced the latter is true.
This would've had to be done extremely early in Islamic history, no later than Omar's reign really. Otherwise we'd have significantly different Qurans lying around.
And that would make it quite weird for the caliph's scribe to have chosen to repeat "day" 365 times instead of the Hijri 354.
-
This would've had to be done extremely early in Islamic history, no later than Omar's reign really. Otherwise we'd have significantly different Qurans lying around.
And that would make it quite weird for the caliph's scribe to have chosen to repeat "day" 365 times instead of the Hijri 354.
In Omar's time, the compilation of Quran was not widespread, mostly exclusively accessible to the elite. There were heterodox copies around which were ordered to be destroyed.
365 days because of its judeonazarene origins (the hebrew calendar is based on 365 days in a year - lunisolar calendar).
-
-
It's not conjecture. Even the Moors who landed in Spain showed no knowledge of the Quran whatsoever. This widespread idea of Quran in the early days is a total myth. But you have to see the translation I have been posting in the "great secret of Islam" to understand why these assertions have historical grounds. The "muslims" who conquered Jerusalem did not call themselves "muslims" at all, they were Saracens. Islam was not a word they used in their discourse. All these are later evolutions. Even the dome of the rock does not contain any verse that is an exact match of a Quranic verse known today.
The hijra calendar is much more recent than the Islamic discourse wants it to be. The hebrew calendar was for a long time the standard in Primo-Islam. It's rather funny how you are using the "365" count as evidence for Qurans integrity while ignoring to see how it contradicts the historicity of the Hijra calendar (contradicted by the 365 count).
-
Peace ths
Actually what I posted in the "surah" thread is also relevant here.
GOD knew people will make the claim that Qoran is not original ,that the Qoran we have is nothing like the one given to the prophet!!!
16101
When we substitute one revelation in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, "You made this up!" Indeed, most of them do not know.16102
Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the Muslimeen."16103
We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue.16104
Surely, those who do not believe in God's revelations, God does not guide them...16105
The only ones who fabricate false doctrines are those who do not believe in God's revelations; they are the real liars.The Qoran I know,study and have checked is the original revelation to the last prophet ,according to my findings.
Bogus histories ,made up stories and theories are many. What is the truth? This is a question to ponder.
There will always be those who will believe "human revelations" instead of GODs revelations?
GOD bless. -
Isn't it peculiar the verses you quote nowhere cite Gabriel as the source when countering these arguments of being a human revalation, goodlogic?
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
My study of Qoran confirms for me that the " holy spirit " mentioned in verse 16102 is Gabriel.
Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the Muslimeen."
Check it out.
GOD bless you.
Peace -
Kinda weird to use ru l-qudusi instead of Gabriels name, don't you think? Even weirder that this verse doesn't clearly state from Gabriel to Muhammad, wouldn't you agree? Instead it says the Holy Spirit "has brought it down". The receiver is not mentioned, nor is the carrier. You can make of those words what you want, but it's not a literal understanding of yours. Ruhu I-qudusi is a judeo-christian understanding of revelation to Jesus and Moses.
-
peace runninglikezebras.
are you forgetting to check the context with the other verses?
Also KUL NAZZALAHU ALRUHU ALAMIN,ALA KALBIKA LITAKUNA MINA ALMUMINEEN" translated
"Say ,the trusworthy holy spirit(Gabriel) has brought it down to your heart ( prophet s heart) to be among the believers."
Like i advised, check Qoran to find out who is the "RUH AL KUDDUS/RUH AL AMIN..."?
GOD bless you.
Peace -
peace runninglikezebras.
are you forgetting to check the context with the other verses?
Also KUL NAZZALAHU ALRUHU ALAMIN,ALA KALBIKA LITAKUNA MINA ALMUMINEEN" translated
"Say ,the trusworthy holy spirit(Gabriel) has brought it down to your heart ( prophet s heart) to be among the believers."
Like i advised, check Qoran to find out who is the "RUH AL KUDDUS/RUH AL AMIN..."?
GOD bless you.
PeaceI'd like to see you making the same point without the text between brackets, which if you're honest you'll admit, is no part of Quran but later commentary - enforcing a certain interpretation.
-
Furthermore you are demonstrating how much you still rely on hadith interpretation (tafsir) of Quran
The proof that Jibril is the Ruh Al-Qudus is the statement of Ibn Mas
ud in explanation of this Ayah (fn. Ibn Abi Hatim 1269). This is also the view of IbnAbbas, Muhammad bin Kab, Ismail bin Khalid, As-Suddi, Ar-Rabibin Anas,Atiyah Al-`Awfi and Qatadah (fn. Ibn Abi Hatim 1270). Additionally, Allah said,
(Which the trustworthy Ruh (Jibril) has brought down. Upon your heart (O Muhammad ) that you may be (one) of the warners) (26193-194).Al-Bukhari recorded `A'ishah saying that the Messenger of Allah erected a Minbar in the Masjid on which Hassan bin Thabit (the renowned poet) used to defend the Messenger of Allah (with his poems). The Messenger of Allah said, "O Allah! Aid Hassan with Ruh Al-Qudus, for he defended Your Prophet."(fn. Fath Al-Bari 10562).
Abu Dawud recorded this Hadith in his Sunan (fn. Abu Dawud 5279) as did At-Tirmidhi who graded it Hasan Sahih (fn. Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi 8137). Further, Ibn Hibban recorded in his Sahih that Ibn Mas`ud said that the Prophet said, "Ruh Al-Qudus informed me that no soul shall die until it finishes its set provisions and term limit. Therefore, have Taqwa of Allah and seek your sustenance in the most suitable way."(fn. See As-Sunnah 14304).(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 288-289)
-
Salaam,
Just as a reminder
297 Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel - then indeed he brought it down on your heart by Allah's permission confirming what before it and a guidance and glad tiding for the believers."
298 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and It's Malaika, and It's Messengers, and Jibreel, and Meekael, then indeed Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.
299 And indeed We revealed to you Verses clear, and not disbelieves in them except the defiantly disobedient.
And now my two cents
From my understanding of the text, the text seems to imply that it was a "Muhammad", who is the messenger and prophet of God, and it is this person who the Quran is associated to and being revealed to.
The verses cited above therefore imply that it is "Jibreel" who is sending down the Quran by Allah's permission to Muhammad - the messenger and prophet of Allah.
Therefore 16102 and other verses where it is proclaimed that the Quran is being revealed, implies that it is through Jibreel.
We can say little about Jibreel (we know he is sending down the Quran by Allah's permission), but nothing about Meekael.
Furthermore, I think the integrity of the text should be based on what the text says currently, and not on claims on how it was compiled or by whom, because the text itself makes a different claim of where it's coming from.
-
Salaam,
Just as a reminder
297 Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel - then indeed he brought it down on your heart by Allah's permission confirming what before it and a guidance and glad tiding for the believers."
298 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and It's Malaika, and It's Messengers, and Jibreel, and Meekael, then indeed Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.
299 And indeed We revealed to you Verses clear, and not disbelieves in them except the defiantly disobedient.
And now my two cents
From my understanding of the text, the text seems to imply that it was a "Muhammad", who is the messenger and prophet of God, and it is this person who the Quran is associated to and being revealed to.
How do you know if the text doesn't state it? To Muhammad is your conjecture, which is only supported by hadith.
The verses cited above therefore imply that it is "Jibreel" who is sending down the Quran by Allah's permission to Muhammad - the messenger and prophet of Allah.
Even though the text doesn't mention "to Muhammad" you still believe it implies "to Muhammad". That is a prime example of conjecture.
Therefore 16102 and other verses where it is proclaimed that the Quran is being revealed, implies that it is through Jibreel.
We can say little about Jibreel (we know he is sending down the Quran by Allah's permission), but nothing about Meekael.
Furthermore, I think the integrity of the text should be based on what the text says currently, and not on claims on how it was compiled or by whom, because the text itself makes a different claim of where it's coming from.
We can say little about Jibreel but we can say at least this much in the verses you quoted about Jibreel, Muhammad is NOT mentioned!
-
How do you know if the text doesn't state it? To Muhammad is your conjecture, which is only supported by hadith.
Even though the text doesn't mention "to Muhammad" you still believe it implies "to Muhammad". That is a prime example of conjecture.
We can say little about Jibreel but we can say at least this much in the verses you quoted about Jibreel, Muhammad is NOT mentioned!
Salaam,
I agree that the Quran has no explicit statement naming both Jibreel and Muhammad, much like how the majority of the verses where the prophet/messenger is concerned, is not referred to by name but by the functioning title i.e. "O prophet, O messenger, the prophet, the messenger" and so on. This does lend some argument to the time-less quality of the text. However if you read the chapter 33, it addresses this prophet, rather more specifically and then further towards the end, names this prophet who the Quran is being revealed/inspired to.
331 O Prophet! Fear Allah and (do) not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Indeed, Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise.
Then immediately after this, we learn that a "something" is being given to this prophet to follow
332 And follow what is inspired to you from your Lord. Indeed, Allah is of what you do All-Aware.
337 And when We took from the prophets their Covenant and from you and from Nuh and Ibrahim and Musa and Isa, Maryam's son. And We took from them a covenant strong
...and to convey
3338 Not is upon the prophet any discomfort in what Allah has imposed on him. Allah's way in concerning those who passed away before. And is Allah's Command a decree destined.
3339 Those who convey Messages (of) Allah and fear Him and not fear anyone except Allah. And sufficient is Allah a Reckoner.
3340 Not is Muhammad father (of) any from your men but is Messenger of Allah and Seal (of) the Prophets. And Allah is of every thing All-Knower.
After reading the Quran in its entirety, I accept this "something" to be referring to itself, i.e. the Quran.
