Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
-
Prophet Muhammad never knew his follower's would collect his divine utterences and call the collection of these utterences Al Quran. When Muhammad was alive revealtions were treated very unussaly. Basicly there was no Quran. What is today known as the Quran may be only 2 percent or 1 of what Muhammad considered divine revealtions. Although it is clear the Quran has not been edited or gone throgh a evolution. In other words Muhammad would have recodnized the contents of are Qurans. But he would have been confused why these divine sayings had been collected and why they were missing more sayings. Then you may ask what is the Quran mentioned in the Quran. Madigan's book answers the qeustion. But to confirm everything stated above read Graham's book. He also shows the Quran we have in mind is not what the early community had in mind. Although the theory of abrogation is a later fabrication it offers a glimpse into early Islam. The theory of abrogation was created because if the Quran was perfect why were there contridictions in it. In early Islam the Quran's contridictory nature was never a problem. God gave a edict out of his wisdom. But that edict was considred temporery. When a new problem will arise God will give a new edict. Even though these divine sayings which we refer to as Quranic verses would contradict each other they were respected. God loves humanity. So God would never give a final solution. Conditions change so much that a final solution is a impossibilaty. God never fixed any of his rulings. In other words God is a dynamic authority that provides often contradictory solutions to probelms because times change. That is way the Quran is so contradictory. So you may ask what happened to a Quranic verse challenging people to find a contridiction in the Quran. The Quran mentioned in this verse and others is not are collection of divine sayings. If you read "Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam" By William A. Graham (not to be confused with the christan evangilist) you will find the answer to that qeustion. For early Islam's view of God's evoling authority and God's dynamicness read Patrica Crone's and Martin Hind's "God's Caliph". Although I do not buy Crone's thesis fully I think she has been able to show early Islam's veiw of divine authority. Again though her theory about the caliph in early Islam being more important then prophet Muhammad and having more respect than prophet Muhammad is I think a streach. Although I am of the opinion that in primative Islam the Caliph was eqaul to prophet Muhammad and may have also been considred a recipient of divine revaulation. I also think the so called Hadith ul Qudsi are actully the so called revaulations which the early caliphs may have thought God had revaled to them are inspired to them. But later these so called divine caliphil utterences which may have been eqaul to the Quran were made into prophetic utterences that were now thought to be extra-Quranic revaltions to Muhammad. I also agree with Crone and Hind that origanally the Caliph had his own sunnah. Later the Caliph's sunnah was transformed into Muhammad's sunnah.
-
L.Hu,
I wish I could reply right away but your post deserves to be properly researched without general assumptions. I appreciate your reply and see that you are bringing an excellent perspective to the table that one needs to look into by setting time aside. I will do so but I am not sure with my schedule how that is possible in the near future. Rest assured, I will try to research this... the only problem for me is when, and not if/whether. -
You can research if you want. Since you can not research in the near future its ok. Work is very very important and essential. My perspective is not important if it disrupts your schedule. But if you do want to research there are alot of books were you can. Here are a few. I will classifie them into what they are about. "Hadith Scholarship". First books by westerners who consider hadiths unrealible and not the words of Muhammad but words put into the mouth of Prophet Muhammad centuries later. These scholars are called "sceptical". Heres a classic. Muslim Studies by Ignaz Goldziher. This two volume work is a classic as said before and undoubtedly laid the grond and set the tone for all future research. The first volume is a essential work on early Islam and arabia. But since we are at hadith scholarship and in particular the "sceptical" school we will comment on the second volume. The second volume is concerned with the devolempment of hadiths. Before Goldziher Aloy Sprenger and William Muir had shown doubts about the hadith literture's historical validity. But they accepted Sahih Bukari, Sahih Muslim, and Tirmadha as railible sources. Goldziher shocked Scholars and fellow oriantalist's with his claim that most if not all hadiths were later fabrications that were made by muslims mostly in Iraq, Syria, Arabia, and to a lesser extent Iran. They reflect the opinons and beliefs of feuding sectarian groups within primative Islam that wanted there opinons to be attributed to prophet Muhammad to gain credence. In basic his conclusion was that when reading Sahih Bukari or any Hadith book you should not search for the opinons of Muhammad or a genuine record of events during Muhammad's life. Instead what you should be searching for is a rich frozen record of the opinons of early Muslims. Naturally this left historians with nothing. There only source for Muhammad's life was gone. They could not write any biography of Muhammad. Thus for 50 years historians praised and payed lip service to Goldziher's finds but used Hadiths often in writing the story of Muhammad's life. Because of the lack of genuine critacal scholarship a man came and sealed the faith of Hadiths in the west. That man was Joseph Scahct. His classic is "The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence". This book is in almost every bibliography on this subject. The book is essential and it is best not to summarize its contents. A simple thing to know about it is that it has had a monumental impact and is a manifesto for people like Patrica Crone and John Wansborough. Read it. The Sectarian Milieu Content And Composition of Islamic Salvation History by John Wansborough is also a classic but is to be approcaed with caution. I will later list more but im very tired. good bye.
-
Read Harald Motzki's excellent anthology called "Hadith Origins and Developments" by Harald Motzki. Contains alot of rare articles that are hard to find. Youthful God Anthropomorphism in Early Islam by Josef Van Ess is also good. Between Bible and Quran The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image by Uri Rubin is excellent. The Development Of Islamic Ritual by G. R. Hawting is also a good work. The Eye of the Beholder The Life of Muhammad As Viewed by the Early Muslims--A Textual Analysiy by Uri Rubin is essential. Muslim Tradition Studies in Chronology, Provenance and Authorship of Early Hadith by G. H. A. Juynboll is a good middle way perspective between sceptism (Joseph Scauht) and niaveness (Nabia Abbot). The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period by Herbert Berg is very good and a excellent example of sceptical scholarship although his doubts concerning every Islamic text and some of his claims and his likings for the too sceptical Wansborough are I think wrong but still very ground breaking. Also if you read any early arabic text from this period that is translated you will note that the amount of times the Quran is mentioned increses with time and also in legal and even ethical disscussions it is absent untill the eight centurie. I think you may have read Daniel Madigan's book but if not you should get the book. Basicly in early Islam god was a evolving authority who would continue to communicate with man. It was this dynamic veiw of God that made Muslims so careless towards the Quran. It was meant for Arabia and as such was not meant for all time. Besides this the Quran is also a small sampling of what were divine utterrences. The fact that legally, ethically, and sometimes theologically the Quran was treated as it did not exist made some foolish western scholars think the Quran is a product of the 8th centurie and of Iraq. The discoverie of the Sana manuscripts refute this but still the sources point to the Quran having little authority. Looking forward to chating with you Maxq
-
Oh I forgot about one thing. The Umayyads are depicted in all Abbaised sources as non-religous, secular, unmuslim, greedy, and cruel beasts. In "God's Caliph" Crone and Hinds show quite well that this better reflects Abbaised hatred of their Umayad predessors and less a historacal reality. In fact Umayyad Caliph's may have thought of themselves as equal to prophets. They would have had their own "sunnahs" or examples. They probably believed that God was their friend and they may have considered themselves recepients of divine revaltion. Thus the picture painted by later sources are wrong. With that lets consider the Umayyad punishment for theft. Some at this site have tried to show that the Quran is not advocating hand mutailation. I remain unconvinced at their attempts. So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting. The Umayyad punishment was flogging. Something to reflect on before you start researching the Quran's early authority.
-
..........So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting. The Umayyad punishment was flogging. Something to reflect on before you start researching the Quran's early authority.
Assalaam Alaikum @L.Hu
Im sorry your assertion that the Quran suggests mutilating and cutting is a false literal misinterpretation of the Quran....
Even by reading the English translation without delving deeply into Quranic Arabic grammatical analysis makes it quite clear.
? Surely those who reject, if they had everything that is in the earth and the like of it with it, to REDEEM themselves from the punishment on the day of judgement, it would never be accepted from them. And for them is a grievous punishment.
Those who reject guidance will have a punishment on their judgement.
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands. a punishment by way of EXAMPLE, FROM ALLAH, for their crime. and Allah is Exalted in power.
Even the translation I posted has some problems, yet as you can read it states 'a punishment by way of EXAMPLE from Allah'....NOT by Men cutting off someone's hands!
Lets address the quranic arabic grammar...I will just post it, its self explanatory. No commentary needed.
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands. a punishment by way of EXAMPLE, FROM ALLAH, for their crime. and Allah is Exalted in power.
Wa alssariqu wa alssariqatu fa iqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bima kasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun
FA (conjunctive) means and then, therefore; Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 809
IQTAAAOO (PASSIVE IMPERFECT Verb)means to separate, sever relations, interrupt, silence ; Root word Qata?a
Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 906- 912 (qata?a)Passive means a verb, or form of a verb, which expresses the effect of the action on the Subject of the verb, Not active, but acted upon; suffering or receiving impressions or INTERNAL influences
aydiyahuma means by his effort, owing to his activity, by or through him, by his means, scatter in all directions, disperse;Root word Yad, foreleg, handle, power, control, influence, authority, assistance
Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 1296- 1296 (yad) (aidihim)The ayah is NOT cutting off someone's 'hands', its severing the influences, power and resources of the mujrimeen/criminals.
? Thus have We made for every prophet an enemy among the sinners/criminals / mujrimeen. but enough is thy Lord to guide and to help.
? And likewise in every village (i.e. community) We have made its criminals / mujrimeeha big people to plan in it. And they do not plan except against themselves / their souls and they are not aware of it.
Mujrimeen (act. Pic, MASCULINE singular Verb Form IV) Sinner ;Root word Jarama to cut off, loop off, acquire a thing, commit a crime, drive one into crime, ONE WHO CUTS OFF TIES WITH ALLAH
We are judged by what our 'hands' produced. Our 'hands' represent our influence and acceptance of guidance or rejection of that guidance.
If you couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the Unbelievers (at death), (How) they smite their faces and their backs, (saying). "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire-
"Because of (the deeds) which your (own) hands sent forth; for Allah is never unjust to His servants.
-
I desire more evidence. More evidence from Quran
Assalaam Alaikum
@L. Hu
I have provided substantial evidence to refute your negative allegation against the Quran. If the evidence I have provided is insufficient then please suggest what evidence is required to to validate your concerns.
If your acceptance criteria is rational and logical, the Quran will confirm them. If your acceptance criteria is illogical and/or irrational then the Quran will also confirm the illegitimacy of your criteria.
Keep in mind that the burden of proof is upon the accuser, thus any negative assertions and/or allegations against the Quran MUST be proven, from the Quran itself. (by the accuser)
The Quran will bear witness to the truth.
I await your response.
? Say. "What thing is greatest in evidence?" Say. "Allah is witness between me and you; This Qur'an has been Revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can you possibly bear witness that besides Allah there is another Allah?" Say. "No! I cannot bear witness!" Say. "But in truth He is the one Allah, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."
The revelation of the Book is from Allah the Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.
Such are the Signs of Allah, which are rehearsed to you in Truth; then in what hadeeth will they believe after (rejecting) Allah and His Signs?
These are clear evidences to men and a Guidance and Mercy to those of assured Faith.
-
When did I ever accuse the Quran. Why should I accuse the Quran. Cutting a theifs hand was a good solution in the seventh century. But now its considered barbaric. Although we may deny this the concept of human rights does not exist directly in the Quran. Because the Quran was revauled to a people who probably would never have understod the concept. Human rights is a modern idea. So it is not amazing that a seventh century book would not contain the idea. Also it is dishonest on your part to accuse me of accuseing the Quran.
-
Assalaam Alaikum @L. Hu
Your statement "Some at this site have tried to show that the Quran is not advocating hand mutailation. I remain unconvinced at their attempts. So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting."
I have shown you clearly from the Quran that there is no 'cutting' of hands, period. Since you have not brought any rational or logical criteria, I will accept and confirm that the evidence you have been presented with will suffice.
If you have any other questions, I await your response.
-
Thus for 50 years historians praised and payed lip service to Goldziher's finds but used Hadiths often in writing the story of Muhammad's life.
Peace
Exactly why I wrote what I wrote concerning Matin Ling's book, which you curiously disagreed with.
Roshan
-
Sorry man. I may have sounded rude. Well even though I posted books by sceptics there are some western scholars who dissagre with Goldziher and Schacht. Like Sezgin and Abbot. But I like the sceptic side better. Well the reason I dissagred with you was that on the basis of conttent Tariq Ramadhan's and Karen Armstorngs bios have no simalarity. If you want to convert a non-muslim to Islam give them Armstorng's or Ramadhan's biography of Muhammad. Ling's book is a good book for making people leave Islam. Sorry if I was rude.
-
Sorry man. I may have sounded rude. Well even though I posted books by sceptics there are some western scholars who dissagre with Goldziher and Schacht. Like Sezgin and Abbot. But I like the sceptic side better. Well the reason I dissagred with you was that on the basis of conttent Tariq Ramadhan's and Karen Armstorngs bios have no simalarity. If you want to convert a non-muslim to Islam give them Armstorng's or Ramadhan's biography of Muhammad. Ling's book is a good book for making people leave Islam. Sorry if I was rude.
Peace
I don't remember you ever being rude. In fact, I am impressed with your library! These are exactly the books I am looking to read. Yes, Ling's book read like a Sunni fairytale. I could not stand it. There should be plenty of historical references to Muhammad (like the treaty of Muhammad).
Roshan
-
Well I have not done any review on Amazon. But if you want I will review all the books I have mentioned. My name on Amazon is muhammad humayoun. So if you want me to review there I will. But if you want me to review here no problem. If you want me to review on Amazon or here should I give the books realability, methods, arguments, conclusion, readablity, and writing style. Or should I skip the last 2. Or do you not want me to talk about the books conclusion. I find no problem reviewing all those books. If you want I will review them. Remember muhammad humayoun. Just tell me if you want to review.
Lareb
-
bro L.Hu,
Ok so let me try to answer your questions, or at least give my opinion (since I have a breather for a day or two).Umayyads as equal to prophets
- It is true that early Khulafaa were considered political as well as "religious" (I'd rather call it spiritual) authoritarians, I highly doubt they considered themselves equal to prophets. I mean "divine" (or transcendent) inspiration is a basic tenet of TaSawwuf (Sufiism). My own grandfather had allegedly written down the time of his natural death long before he died; how much of this is fact and how much is fiction, I don't know. It was prevalent in many other circles in Arabia and the Fertile crescent (exhibits are the apocalypses of various Christian and Jewish religious figures). Did all these people consider (or allege) themselves prophets or equals to prophets? Doubtful generally speaking; we do have exceptions in case of the person we have come to know as Muhammad, and others being Musailmah etc.
- If indeed Umayyads considered themselves equals to prophets, then why would the Dome of the Rock read "You (God) bless Muhammad Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God". This portion of the inscription does not belong to the amendment made by Mamum ur Rashid, and is the most likely the original inscription from the time of Abd al Malik bin Marwaan.
- Was Quran considered secondary (or as equivalent to other edicts) at this point Likely, since the concept of intercession by the prophet is NOT A QURANIC CONCEPT.
Cutting of the Hands
- I agree with "Muslimtruthrevealed" but I will not say that you are accusing the Quran lol
- Many such prescriptions seem to have been neglected or interepreted literally by the Khulafa. What I want from you is evidence that Muhammad (or whatever his name was) prescribed literally cutting the hands of habitual thieves (and I am not asking for a verse or hadith, but a historic record outside of the Islamic "history" corpus). It is strange that non-Islamic documentation of the era mentions ludicrous festivals, kissing of the black stone, murdering of people in villages, praying in a certain direction, alliance with the Jew, and yet no cutting of any hands is mentioned.
Quran Any kind of Authority
- First off, I think Quran is a wee bit older than its alleged span of "revelation". Bro Ayman on the forums thinks that Muhammad was born at least 20 years earlier than the historic record, but I feel it may be half a century before that. This is my hypothesis which I intend to research (hopefully in this lifetime lol)
- I do not think that "muslims/mu'mins" during the times of Muhammd were following a religion. They came from several religions who had come under one corporeal recognition, the majority being Arabs (who were predominently Hagaraeans along with jewish, christian, mandaean, perhaps even pagan sub-groups etc). Strikingly, this is in agreement with Robert Hoylads implied conclusion in Seeing Islam as Others Saw it.
- Quran would have, at that point, served as a commentary for each group on their respective beliefs (and perhaps to seek freedom by being rational and abandon "muhaggar" their dogma - along with some prescriptions) and did not have the position of a "religious" scripture. But that would mean it did have "reminding" authority Exactly what the Quran claims itself to be. Again, my hypothesis which I intend to research.
- It is only later that we see this group morph into Muslims (Saracins or Ishmailites being their old nicknames).
- Extra-Quranic or Para-Quranic revelations are not a new allegation. In fact sunni and shia circles have this belief prevelant. However there has been considerable debate over this on the forums so I'd rather you search and study those threads... or better yet, try to talk with Bro Ayman, Arnold Yasin or some of the other learned people on this forum.
Hopefully this gives you some understanding of where I stand.
PS I have made some revisons to better explain my position...
-
With all do respect. Thank you for your answer. I liked it. But I do dissagre with your Muhammad's birth thing. I mean you no disrespect but I think its far fected. Your hagarene thesis seems good but the person who helped create it no longer accepts it (Patrica Crone). Micheal Cook also denys it now. In one article she (Crone) says that we know more about Muhammad then any man before modern times. Also to the Khailifa thing one can accept a prophet and also consider oneself eqaul to them. The Khalifs would have thought that they were speacial figures equal to prophets. To the hand cutting thing, you ask for evidence outside of Islamic sources. You ask because you assume the Islamic tradition is not realible. Although since we are Quran alone and like Schacht's scepticism it is slowly being shown to have exgarrated things. Harald Motzki has shown Islamic records are quite reliable. And non muslim records are as unrealible as Muslim records. Because non muslim records record great slaughter and destruction at the conquests. But archeology shows muslims affected very little the middle eastern way of life. Wine was drunk and pigs were raised. No records of burning is found. No mass conversions took place. In fact some schoalars deny Muslims every conquered anything since such little evidence of violence exists. So in this regard non muslim sources are unrealible. Also in Hoyland's book he (Hoyland) often says that non muslim sources tell the same story as muslim sources. In fact the goal of his book is to attack revisonist history and ideas that deem muslim historiacal tradition wrong. Since according to him non muslim sources match muslim sources. Also in one book I read this idea is refuted. For example even though the gospels are not realible, if you rally on jewish sources jesus was the son of a prostitute. In regard to extra Quranic revaltions the Quran's we have are a small sampling of a massive unrecorded oral tradition. I like in regards to Islamic history one scholars view. Muhammad exsited. Abu Bakr exsited. Omar existed. Utham exsited. Ali exsited. Islam was born in the hijaz. Muhammad was born near the date specifed. But details concerniing these people is often dubius. Thus I reject Crone's old thesis. Anywhy she now rejects it. I like your ideas. But they are historical far fected. But still good ideas. If you research all opinons with a open mind you will find superior ideas. Still your ideas show you are intelligent. But you merely need to study the sceince of history, the limitions of archeologhy, and source critism, and redaction. After learning these you will realise why your present ideas are far fected. Still you are intelligent. Again thank you for your input. Have more thoughts present them.
sun peace
-
Hoyland's goal may only be declared by him, and he has tried to bridge gaps, but he himself admits the historicity of Islam almost abruptly surfaces which is extremly interesting...
And yes if I may add I agree that people we have now come to know as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali may have existed, but in what capacity? Were they close friends and family? I can't say yet
Thanks for being open about this. I'll consider your proposal, as always )