The First Qu'ran - Page 2

banjo · 10-05-2005, 06:00 AM

Yes, it is true that muslims back in the early years made great attempts to memorise the quran however all this is irrelevant since we have hard evidence that the oldest quran is different to the current quran.

All this stuff about how the early followers would have memorised things is just opinion. The actual hard evidence we have is the only thing that matters and the actual hard evidence says that the quran has changed.

This isn't just my opinion, I'm just stating what the evidence seems to be saying. The western scholar who studied the Yemen manuscripts hasn't published his final report yet but he has published some articles in Germany. According to this page he says:

Quote:

Whole sections are missing and added in with a much later hand. Passages that today read 'Say...' (a divine command to Muhammad) are seen to have once been 'he said...' or 'they said...', indicating a possible attributing of the words of humans to Allah. Over 1,000 variants have been found within the first 83 surahs alone.

Apparently, the earliest versions of the quran were written without vowels and diacritical marks (accents over letters). The diacritical marks were added later when the compilers of the quran wanted to make it clear what their understanding of the quran was. This system is open to abuse. As this page points out:

Quote:

In many cases, the differences can be quite significant. Mr. Puin [the western scholar who examined the Yemen manuscripts] points out that in the early archaic copies of the Koran, it is impossible to distinguish between the words "to fight" and "to kill." In many cases, he said, Islamic exegetes added diacritical marks that yielded the harsher meaning, perhaps reflecting a period in which the Islamic Empire was often at war.

A return to the earliest Koran, Mr. Puin and others suggest, might lead to a more tolerant brand of Islam, as well as one that is more conscious of its close ties to both Judaism and Christianity.

So, the quran HAS changed whether you like it or not. That's a simple fact. How you deal with that fact is up to you but there's no point in denying it. Maybe Uthman did compile the best quran he could (given the memories of the people around him) but even so it is apparent that there were other versions around. So it is not possible to claim that the quran as we have it now is exactly what Gabriel gave to Mohammed because we have evidence to the contrary.

It might be the same, if Uthman got it exactly right and if all the guys who memorised it got it exactly right, but we can't say for certain that the Uthman version is the "right" version because there are other, earlier versions which are different.

Maybe they are right and Uthman is wrong, who knows? If you can't say for certain who is right and who is wrong (and you can't) then you can't claim the quran is exactly the word of God. It might be approximately the word of God but not exactly. It's logically impossible to hold any other position when there are differing versions available.

Having said all that, I think Ramadan is a philosopically sound festival. I think fasting is good for the soul. So Happy Ramadan! And remember, hunger is just a state of mind.

~Believer~ · 10-05-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banjo

Yes, it is true that muslims back in the early years made great attempts to memorise the quran however all this is irrelevant since we have hard evidence that the oldest quran is different to the current quran.

All this stuff about how the early followers would have memorised things is just opinion. The actual hard evidence we have is the only thing that matters and the actual hard evidence says that the quran has changed.

This isn't just my opinion, I'm just stating what the evidence seems to be saying. The western scholar who studied the Yemen manuscripts hasn't published his final report yet but he has published some articles in Germany. According to this page he says:

Apparently, the earliest versions of the quran were written without vowels and diacritical marks (accents over letters). The diacritical marks were added later when the compilers of the quran wanted to make it clear what their understanding of the quran was. This system is open to abuse. As this page points out:

So, the quran HAS changed whether you like it or not. That's a simple fact. How you deal with that fact is up to you but there's no point in denying it. Maybe Uthman did compile the best quran he could (given the memories of the people around him) but even so it is apparent that there were other versions around. So it is not possible to claim that the quran as we have it now is exactly what Gabriel gave to Mohammed because we have evidence to the contrary.

It might be the same, if Uthman got it exactly right and if all the guys who memorised it got it exactly right, but we can't say for certain that the Uthman version is the "right" version because there are other, earlier versions which are different.

Maybe they are right and Uthman is wrong, who knows? If you can't say for certain who is right and who is wrong (and you can't) then you can't claim the quran is exactly the word of God. It might be approximately the word of God but not exactly. It's logically impossible to hold any other position when there are differing versions available.

Having said all that, I think Ramadan is a philosopically sound festival. I think fasting is good for the soul. So Happy Ramadan! And remember, hunger is just a state of mind.

you dont have facts and where is this manuscript you are talking about can i see it ? oh sorry you quoted from an anti-islamic site

Popeyesays · 10-05-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Believer~

you dont have facts and where is this manuscript you are talking about can i see it ? oh sorry you quoted from an anti-islamic site

http://www.netivyah.org/content/article/koran%20b.pdf#search='Yemeni%20fragments'

This is not an anti-Islamic site. It is an academic discussion of the literary nature of the Qur'an. It raises questions. Questions are not evil. Questions lead to the truth. The TRUTH cannot be anti-Islamic.

I would expect that the next agitation in the Islamic world will be to destroy these documents. This is why the original researchers were careful in their disclosure until they had a full photographic record of the documents.

The oldest fragments date to before 750 and they are a palimpset = a cleaned parchment - of an even earlier version of the Qur'an that is partially readable under ultraviolet light.

If modern Islam cannot adapt to the scholarly method of research, in my opinion it is out of fear of that method, not a pursuit of truth.

Fortunately the word of Muhammed does not depend upon the conservative Islamic authorities for truth. If they could see that, they would not be so bitterly opposed. Rigid literalism mroe often than not discloses lack of faith rather than faith - in my opinion.

Regards,
Scott

banjo · 10-06-2005, 02:08 AM

Popeyesays, if you scroll back to my first post in this thread you will see that I already linked to that article (in a non-pdf format). Here it is again, in HTML:

http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html

The Wikipedia (not anti-islam) article on the quran notes this about the variations contained in the Yemen quran:

Quote:

Interestingly enough, the variations from the received text that he did find seemed to match variations reported by Islamic scholars, in their descriptions of the variant Qur'ans once held by Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali, and suppressed by Uthman's order.

Believer,

you're right that the first site I linked to above was pro-christian (rather than anti-islamic) and I should have mentioned that. The problem is that the scholars who have examined the Yemen fragments have not yet published their findings in full. All we have is that article that I and popeyesays linked to and also some articles that Puin has published in Germany. Unfortunately, I can't find any decent online translations of these German articles so I took a quote from that website. The website does not seem to be rabidly anti-islamic and is quoting what Puin has found so I think it's probably true (at least that short quote I gave, I'm not talking about the site in general).

You say:

Quote:

you dont have facts and where is this manuscript you are talking about can i see it?

The following are the facts as we know them:

- fragments of the oldest Quran in existence were found by in 1972 by workmen in the Great Mosque in Yemen. There were thousands of these fragments.

- these fragments are currently being held by the House of Antiquities in Yemen.

- they have been studied only by two academics who have yet to publish their full findings.

- from what these academics have published so far it is certain that there are some differences between the Yemen quran and the Uthman qurans.

No one disputes these facts, not even muslim scholars. The Yemeni authorities have been reluctant to allow further (proper academic) study of the fragments which is a shame. There is a strange lack of any articles on the net about these fragments - this is because the two scholars who examined them want all the glory for themselves when they do publish - this is typical of academics, they keep quiet about their research until they publish.

So we will have to wait and see for the full story but there's no doubt that the fragments are out there and that they differ from the current quran. It's up to islam to explain these facts, you can't change the facts to suit islam. Facts are facts.

By the way, just so you know - I'm not christian or any other religion. I'm not pushing any agenda. I'm not anti-islam either.

arthra · 10-06-2005, 02:45 AM

Hello "Banjo"

I am curious about what comes from this, but I would have to say from your post it's a little premature to draw any conclusions since only two academics are studying it and they have made no formal conclusions as yet...so let's be patient and wait and see...

It took quite a few years as most of us know after all for the Dead Sea Scrolls Commission to arrive at it's conclusions...Think of how many scholars were involved in the Dead Sea Scrolls Commission!

A few points I'd also like to mention is that Yemen was not the center of developement for the Qur'an but rather Mecca and Medina...

Yemen itself was a later in coming under the new revelation. According to the Kitab al-Irshad by al-Mufid, the Prophet sent Khalid b. Walid to Yemen to call them to the new revelation. Yemen had Christian and even some Zoroastrian influences...

The verbal tradition of Qur'an was a definite reality I believe as we know that many of the Companions of the Prophet had memorized Qur'an and that one of the reasons for setting it down in a standardized form was because some of these Companions were dying and it was feared what they knew could be lost.

Another point that I think is important to note here is that there were many letters and speeches recorded of Ali b. Abi Talib where you can verify the actual verses of Qur'an so this can serve if you will as a backup and support to the actual text itself.

- Art

arthra · 10-06-2005, 03:37 AM

A few other points I think are worth mentioning regarding some of the sites posted earlier...

One is from the Netivya Bible Instruction Ministry... I would be a little wary of this and suggest they may not be the most objective as far as the Qur'an is concerned. This is from their page:

"This new communication channel has been created because of the many requests we have had from those wishing to share words of encouragement with those who are patiently trusting our G-d and Father to answer all the petitions of their family of faith."

Another site referred to above is the Derafsh Kaviyani site and has this statement "down with the Islamic regime" on it's Home Page.

So there may be some reasons and motivations here that are well outside the realm of objective scholarship.

- Art

banjo · 10-06-2005, 06:26 AM

arthra,

Quote:

A few points I'd also like to mention is that Yemen was not the center of developement for the Qur'an but rather Mecca and Medina...

Yemen itself was a later in coming under the new revelation. According to the Kitab al-Irshad by al-Mufid, the Prophet sent Khalid b. Walid to Yemen to call them to the new revelation. Yemen had Christian and even some Zoroastrian influences

Yes but the oldest quran we have happens to have been found in Yemen so that's all we've got to go on. Doesn't matter what tradition teaches, all that matters is the hard evidence.

Quote:

The verbal tradition of Qur'an was a definite reality I believe as we know that many of the Companions of the Prophet had memorized Qur'an and that one of the reasons for setting it down in a standardized form was because some of these Companions were dying and it was feared what they knew could be lost.

Yes, many of the companions who had memorised the Quran had died. So many were dying, in fact, that this is what prompted Uthman to make his "final" copy, before it was lost forever.

Maybe he didn't quite save it in time. Maybe too many companions had died to make a safe copy. Or maybe the memories of those that survived were not entirely perfect. However it happened, it definitely happened - the quran we have now is different to (at least one version) of the quran they had then.

And this quran that they were using then had been around for a long time. We know this because the earliest Yemeni manuscripts were overwritten over earlier versions.

People in this thread keep talking about about how tradition dictates that the quran was memorised and that therefore it is safe. This argument doesn't work. Tradition becomes irrelevant when you have contradictory hard evidence. Regardless of what tradition says, the oldest quran we have found says different. And we should always follow hard evidence over the anecdotal.

Quote:

Another point that I think is important to note here is that there were many letters and speeches recorded of Ali b. Abi Talib where you can verify the actual verses of Qur'an so this can serve if you will as a backup and support to the actual text itself.

Again this is not really important. All we are interested in is actual hard copies of the quran not other peoples opinions. There are loads of opinions. Clint Eastwood (as Dirty Harry) once said "Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one".

I think that the oldest evidence of the quran at all is some markings on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Some verses of the quran were etched into the rock walls. These etchings predate even the Yemen manuscripts but they show similarities with the Yemen manuscripts (as far as I'm aware) in that they lack diacritical marks etc.

Quote:

Another site referred to above is the Derafsh Kaviyani site and has this statement "down with the Islamic regime" on it's Home Page.

So there may be some reasons and motivations here that are well outside the realm of objective scholarship.

Yes but the actual article is copied from the Atlantic Monthly journal which is subscription only. I think that article appears on the web occasionally but gets closed down when Atlantic Monthly learn about it. For copyright reasons they don't want other websites giving it away for free when they charge for it. So it appears every so often when some fringe website or other decides to post it - by the nature of the article it's usually anti-islamic sites that tend to post it (or sites that are anti- the regime in Iran as in this case).

None of this affects the actual article itself though, which is just a discussion of what the guys found when they studied the fragments in Yemen and the potential implications thereof.

Regardless of the biases of the various websites, the facts are still the same:

They found some pieces of the oldest qurans we have, these pieces are different to the current standard quran.

These facts are not in doubt.

35000 photographs were taken of these fragments and are being studied as we speak. So this whole thing is going to be a big news issue at some point in the future (when it all gets published). There's no point in burying your head in the sand and pretending it isn't going to happen. Best to face it now and prepare yourself. This issue is not going to go away quietly and hide.

Popeyesays · 10-06-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banjo

arthra,

35000 photographs were taken of these fragments and are being studied as we speak. So this whole thing is going to be a big news issue at some point in the future (when it all gets published). There's no point in burying your head in the sand and pretending it isn't going to happen. Best to face it now and prepare yourself. This issue is not going to go away quietly and hide.

That is indisputable. I think that the congregation of Mullahs and Imams are going to have great difficulty dealing with amalgamating this evidence constructively into the faith of Islam.

Regards,
Scott

Iyad · 10-11-2005, 04:19 PM

I like this site and this is my first post here...

Please consider my argument,

Even "IF" the Quran was proved to have "written deferences", You have to understand that writing the Quran was just a mean of preserving what was already memorized by the first generation. The Quran was sent down verbally and not in writing.

Think about it this way: If I write the same word in two deferent ways but I still know what that word is exactly, meaning I'm still pronouncing the same word, then it really doesnt mean much does it? The origin of the Quran was verbal and not written.

Old Qurans don't have the diacriticals (which is an enhancement to the Arabic language not to the Quran) but if I can read my copy of the Quran and say Uthman can read the first copy and we are both saying the same things doesen't that mean that we are reciting the Quran as it was sent down (verbally) see what I'm saying?

That is in addition to the fact that the Quran was sent down with seven accents/readings/toungs... So when the first generation offered deferent reading to the prophet Muhammad, he approved them even when they sounded deferent... (due to dialectical deferences among deferent tribes)

So basically, we're not finding anything new here... even if whatever copy of the quran they find now or ever doesn't look "exactly" like what we have today, that doesn't mean that the Quran was changed.

Add to that the fact that the prophet did take some verses out of the Quran during his life time (this is called Naskh in Arabic) so if one person had written down that version and burried it just for us to find it now, that doesn't prove anything... It's a well known fact..

Point is, vast majority of people who memorized the Quran, agreed that what Uthman had collected is what they call the complete Quran... and if they hear me recite the copy I have of the Quran today, they'll hear exactly what they used to know as the Quran... They might not be able to read my copy cuz of the additions to the written Arabic letters, but they'll hear the same thing...

May Allah guide those who seek the truth to his straight path.

Regards,
Iyad

redindica · 10-18-2005, 06:11 PM

Hi Iyad

I’ve been pondering this and what you are saying is that the revisions found in the Yemen fragments are a matter of lingustical interpretation then why did God decided the messenger of His Word to be delivered by somebody who could not read nor write?

If the Qu’ran is the true word of God then the process that He has chosen to delineate His word seems very convoluted. Ie…through Muhammad and then (in your assumption) re interpreted by a sucestion of third parties.

Are all of these people sanctioned by God?…If they are then the Last Prophet is not the last but the first in a series that have given us the words of God.

Peace

Iyad · 10-19-2005, 05:27 PM

Hi Redindica,

Thank you for your question...

The Quran (29/V.48) reads: "48. Neither did you (O Muhammad صلىاللهعليهوسلم) recite any book before it (this Qur’an), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted (its origin)."

We see the fact that the prophet Muhammad (S) was illiterate as an additional proof that he had no say in what the Quran contains... See if this book came from a renowned poet or writer, everyone would be saying "it's just a work of art on Muhammad's (S) part." They would think that him having a history of being able to write literature or poetry, must have enabled him with time to write such a book that's on a totally deferent level (people back then didn't know what to call this work... it wasn't poetry or literature.. The Arabic language is very specific in describing literature and this book did not fit any of the known categories at that time -or even now-)

We see this as an additional proof that Muhammad (S) just relayed what he received from God through his angel, word to word. (On the side, someone brought to my attention yesterday that the Quran contains a whole Sura/Chapter by the name of "Mariam" the mother of Jesus (S) praising her and describing what a great woman she was... He then said: “you wonder why Muhammad (S) didn't praise his own mom had he written the Quran himself.")

- You probably missed the big "IF" at the start of my post :-) I never said the Quran does have variations... I said "IF"

The source of such variations (IF FOUND) would be only due to local dialects... The original Quran was written (during the life of the prophet (S)) according to the dialect of "Quraish" The predominant tribe in Arabia at that time and also said to have the purest/most authentic Arabic language... (there used to be poetry competitions held in Mecca and those great poems that won would be hung on the Ka'aba (shrine) in honor of the poets..)

Still, the Quran was "READ" in seven (some say ten) dialects... depending on the local regions... All of those reading were approved by the prophet himself.

(When someone memorizes the Quran nowadays he either chooses which reading to abide by, or may master all seven/ten of them... One can't mix and match... every reading is taught word to word)

Now, when the Quran reached the borders of Non-Arabic speaking countries, and/or Arabic speakers with deferent dialects, some of these people started to write the Quran as they are hearing it but using their local dialects... this may and probably did introduce some variations in the way the Quran was written... BUT, these were local or even personal copies of the Quran (Vs. Authenticated) they never prevailed and no one claimed that what he had is truer and so... this is really easy to understand... one made a "best effort" copy but while the original was available, there is no need for a "best effort" copy...

Example: The constitution of the U.S is available. I make a hand copy of it and maybe make a typo or a mistake. The government prints out verified copies of the constitution, and I no longer have a need for my personal copy. I go and get one.

What Uthman did when this was brought to his attention, was that he copied the Original Quran that was authenticated by the prophet into copies that were then sent to deferent countries And he ordered any and all personal copies to be destroyed...

Another note (and FYI) is that Muslims have a thing about destroying old Qurans… Out of respect to the text and if for any reason they need to get rid of a copy of the Quran (cuz it’s torn, worn out, whatever), they don’t just through it in trash… They usually burn it or dig into the earth and bury it or so…

If a man chose to do that with his copy of the Quran (which had typos or mistakes or was just written down with his own dialect) and now we find that copy… does it really mean that we should then take his word over what the Muslims since the time of Muhammad (S) have accepted to be the true authentic Quran as the prophet (S) received from God and with an uninterrupted transmission chain both verbally and in writing?

That’s another thing all together, you have to understand that along with writing the Quran, the Quran was memorized by heart by tons of people since it was sent down… a Muslim thinks that this is the best thing anyone can have (to memorize the Quran) they don’t take it lightly at all! People who learn the Quran usually do so with the help of a “Hafiz” or presever. This person keeps a chain of everyone who had passed the Quran down to him personally tracing it all the way to the prophet.

Obviously there are thousands of chains (series of people who passed down the Quran) but basically those who learn the Quran in China and those who learn the Quran in Damascus or Morocco are learning the same exact thing… word to word… letter to letter… and this is the way things have been since the time of Muhammad (S). We have no historical records of groups of people claiming to have a deferent copy of the Quran! Finding one old copy hardly proves anything... What if the writer wasn't a muslim all together and he intentionally put stuff there and buried it to be found at this time just for the heck of it? lol. Who's to know???
I can write the "declaration of incependence" and safe keep it somewhere... in two thousand years, people will be unlikely to think that "There was another declaration of independece at that time" :-) For more than one reason :-)

Hope that helped!

Best,

Iyad

wil · 10-19-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

We see the fact that the prophet Muhammad (S) was illiterate

the fact that it was written 20 years after his death....like the gospels 30-40 years after Jesus....and nothing written in his hand either...just rememberances of his word...

In US court it is known that the only thing less reliable than an eyewitness, is an ear-witness, heresay isn't even admissable, but it is gospel!

namaste,

Iyad · 10-20-2005, 12:56 AM

Quote:

the fact that it was written 20 years after his death

Hi Namaste,

This is not acurate! The Quran was written down completely during Muhammad's (S) life and under his direct supervision... Along with the fact that it was memorized word to word (again during the life of the prophet (S))by tens of the companions.

You have to ask your self: "What are the chances that "holy Mary full of Grace" would be lost... It's impossible right? As long as there are Christians, this prayer will live on..!

When Abu Bakr (the khalif that ruled after Muhammads's (S) death. He only ruled for two years) gathered the written verses of the Quran in one place, he did so from the written pieces of the Quran and not from the companions memory... Nevertheless, those who memorized the Quran in full were in agreement over the authenticity of the Quran...

You have to realize that Islam throughout it's existence have had enough enemies who would've spared no efforts to prove anything that is being suggested these days! If any of the enemies of Islam during that time had a chance in suggesting that there was a problem with the way the Quran was delivered down, believe me :-) they would have made sure to make their points... if not in Arabia, then else where! All these claims about the authenticity of the transmission of the Quran are new age! In the past, the major arguments were that Muhammad (S) was just crazy, possesed by the devil, a poet, just copying the bible and the torah... and so forth.

Hope that helped!

Best,
Iyad

redindica · 10-20-2005, 12:01 PM

Hi Iyad

thank you for the reply the quote below from your good self answers my question, if it's just a case of dialectual changes then I can see the need for over writing.

Quote:

Now, when the Quran reached the borders of Non-Arabic speaking countries, and/or Arabic speakers with deferent dialects, some of these people started to write the Quran as they are hearing it but using their local dialects... this may and probably did introduce some variations in the way the Quran was written... BUT, these were local or even personal copies of the Quran (Vs. Authenticated) they never prevailed and no one claimed that what he had is truer and so... this is really easy to understand... one made a "best effort" copy but while the original was available, there is no need for a "best effort" copy...

Peace

Popeyesays · 10-20-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iyad

Hi Namaste,

You have to ask your self: "What are the chances that "holy Mary full of Grace" would be lost... It's impossible right? As long as there are Christians, this prayer will live on..!

"Hail Mary!" is not a Biblical source, its a Roman Catholic prayer. I grew up in Protestant churches and the prayer was never used there.

Scriptural integrity is a different issue, however.

What significance was introduced to the Qur'an when disacriticals were added to the language?

Regards,
Scott