Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Storm Large

Tabernacle is greater than Kaaba

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam,

One logical reason why the Hashimite Sayeds DID NOT use diacritical marks was that the margin of error in erroneous copying and mistakes by human hand could cause mispronunciation. With the Arabic language being so ultra-sensitive to the slightest change in vocalization, which could lead to a completely different meaning, human handwritten errors in diacritical markings would have been inevitable. There were no printing presses then in the Near East. The use of diacritical marks is a delicate issue and requires painstaking care and caution. To avoid such margins of error, especially when it came to arduous, painstaking handwritten material, it would have been more logical to EXCLUDE them. I know this may not make sense, but if you gave it some deep thought, it does make sense.

Easy. Just use a master copy & all Quran copies must be exactly the same as the master copy.

Also, the photocopies I provided are indeed authentic ones of the Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds/Islamic Aimma. Nearly all of the Holy Qur'ans calligraphed by the Hashimite Sayeds are today in Iran. As I already mentioned, they were appropriated by Shah Ismail I from Iraq.

Since, the Islamic revolution of 1979 in Iran, for the longest time any photocopying of the landmark Holy Qur'ans of Islamic history, especially the ones handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds, were prohibited.

Any photocopies in circulation of those Holy Qur'ans are extremely rare indeed. Only tourists and pilgrims who go to Qom and Mashhad in Iran, have seen them. THERE IS NO DOUBT TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY as they have been examined by some of the top scholars around the world. However, because of their proprietorship by the "Shi'ite" state of Iran and the stigma attached to this within the non-Shi'ite Islamic world, these Holy Qur'ans have most sadly been neglected and ignored.

Do you know how the scholars confirmed their authenticity? How do they ensure that the copies were truly written down by Imams instead of someone else (for instance, their followers)?

Moreover, I read that when Imam Ali presented his mushaf (which is completed with asbabun nuzul & tafsir) & got rejected by Abu Bakr & Umar, Imam Ali said that his Mushaf will be never seen again (or will be seen when Imam Mahdi appears). So, why now we have a copy attributed to Imam Ali?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

Easy. Just use a master copy & all Quran copies must be exactly the same as the master copy.

Wa Alaykum As-Salam.

Did you understand that Hafs b. Sulayman b. al-Mughirah b. Abi Dawud al-Asadi al-Kufi(709-796 A.D.) was the one who is accredited with devising the le-raab [diacritical marks] ?

He was a contemporary of 6th Hashimite Sayed, Jafar as-Sadiq(700-765 A.D.)...This means that there were no diacritics used for any EARLIER Qur'ans...

Also, there were OTHER handwritten copies of the Holy Qur'an in Kufic script by anonymous sources, examined by forensic archaeologists & Qur'anic scholars such as Gerd Puin, that have been dated as far back as early 8th century A.D. ...

These copies also have no diacritical marks and are almost all in Kufic script. The Ma'ili Arabic script called muqawwar wa mudawwar up until Muawiyah's Caliphate, was written in an upright form also up until Muawiyah's Caliphate. The Sanaa parchments[dated to 710-715 A.D.], written in Ma'il Arabic script, are by far the OLDEST non-Kufic scripted Holy Qur'ans in existence. They date to the Umayyad Caliphate of Al-Walid.

The Sanaa parchments also don't have any diacritical marks[le-raab]...Simply because diacritics for Arabic weren't developed yet...

And again, as I mentioned in earlier postings, medieval Arabic from mid-7th century thru 10th century, was the LINGUA FRANCA due to the Arab worldwide conquests...

One of the rarest examples of the use of diacritics in a medieval language was its application in the brand new language of original Hebrew[Massoretic Tiberian Hebrew] as evident in the very first Hebrew text, which was the Tiberian or Aleppo[Halab] Codex of 920 A.D. ...

Only the 6th thru the 8th Hashimite Sayeds would have even been able to apply the le-raab[diacritical marks] in their respective handwritten copies of the Holy Qur'ans since their development by Hafs b. Sulayman(709-796 A.D.). But from their calligraphed copies still in existence, they did not do so...

As I also mentioned earlier, there are no existing copies of any Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the last four Hashimite Sayeds due to the general historical consensus that they were prevented to do so by the Abbasid Caliphate...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how the scholars confirmed their authenticity? How do they ensure that the copies were truly written down by Imams instead of someone else (for instance, their followers)?

Moreover, I read that when Imam Ali presented his mushaf (which is completed with asbabun nuzul & tafsir) & got rejected by Abu Bakr & Umar, Imam Ali said that his Mushaf will be never seen again (or will be seen when Imam Mahdi appears). So, why now we have a copy attributed to Imam Ali?

Salam.

The authenticity of the Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds are reaffirmed because they HAVE THEIR PERSONAL SIGNATURES AND HIJRI DATES ATTACHED TO THEM...

It is amazing how some "Muslims" such as yourself question the veracity of Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds, but will READILY ACCEPT that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, even Muwawiyah, had supposedly ordered Holy Qur'ans to be written down...NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND TO THIS DAY.

The FICTIONAL account of Caliph Ali supposedly having his Mus'haf "rejected" by either Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman [you see the orthodox "Muslim" scholars can't even get their story straight] is READILY ACCEPTED by the likes of you...But then again, WHERE ARE THE ABU BAKR, UMAR, UTHMAN HOLY QUR'ANS ???

And who are Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman to REJECT the Holy Qur'an by the likes of Ali ibn Abu Talib ? And why on earth would they have hypothetically REJECTED it ? Caliph Ali was a recognized calligrapher, while neither Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman were known to be any kind of calligraphers...

You doubt the authenticity of the Ali Codex[Al-Mushaf Al-Ali] at Alawiyah Library in Najaf, Iraq, yet you PRESENT a FICTIONAL hadith which cannot even be proven archaeologically...

The Ali Codex is in existence TODAY as we breathe[dated by him with his personal signature upon it]...Yet you question its authenticity. There are photocopies of it, and yet you question their veracity...

I already stated that the so-called TWO copies of the SUPPOSED "Uthman" Holy Qur'ans in Istanbul, Turkey and Tashkent, Uzbekistan ARE IN KUFIC ARABIC SCRIPT. THIS SCRIPT WAS NOT IN USE DURING UTHMAN'S LIFETIME...WITH NO PERSONAL SIGNATURE THAT IS EVEN ATTRIBUTED TO UTHMAN IBN AL-AFFAN...

What part of this do you not understand ?

You see in these threads, I have just gotten done from virtually proving the Ashkenazi-Zionist concepts of their own history to be falsified and incorrect...But then I have to contend with fellow "Muslims" like you, who question the authenticity of their own holy books in favour of FICTIONAL ones[i.e. the supposed Holy Qur'ans by the Abu Bakrs, Umars, Uthmans, Muawiyahs, etc.] that archaeologically DO NOT EXIST...

All our Christian and Jewish brothers who visit these threads must get solid laughs about this UNCERTAINTY among the Muslim Ummah...

No devout Christian, no matter what DENOMINATION, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc., has any DOUBTS to the New Testament and its gospels authored by Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, etc.,[i.e. the "apostles" of Jesus Christ]...

No devout Jews doubt the Rabbinical literature from the Zugot(circa 200 B.C.) to the Acharonim(A.D. 1500-Present)...

And yet among us "Muslims", there isn't even a uniformity of acceptance of our various sectarian ahadith, nor even who wrote and preserved the authentic Holy Qur'an...

Hypothetically, if an open CHALLENGE were to be placed upon the Muslim Ummah by any and all Non-Muslims in the world to PRODUCE THESE ABU BAKR/UMAR/UTHMAN/MUAWIYAH ordered Holy Qur'ans, what do you think would be the outcome ?

The Muslim Ummah would appear to be LIARS or FOOLS or BOTH...Since we would be UNABLE TO PHYSICALLY PRODUCE ANY SUCH HOLY QUR'ANS...But only FICITIONAL ahadith regarding them...

If this hypothetical CHALLENGE were for the Muslim Ummah to PRODUCE THE HOLY QUR'ANS HANDWRITTEN BY THE BIOLOGICAL DESCENDANTS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD, WE MOST CERTAINLY CAN...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

P.S. - From Islamic Awareness website with references to Efim Rezvan and Francois Deroche about more falsely attributed "Uthman" Qur'ans at St. Petersburg, Russia and Bukhara, Uzbekistan :

This manuscript was falsely attributed to caliph ʿUthmān in Katta Langar[such as the one at Samarqand, two in Istanbul (Topkapi Library and TIEM), and two in Cairo (al-Hussein mosque and Dār al-Kutub)].

Also :

Below are the anonymously written ALLEGED "Uthman" Qur'ans...But they are in KUFIC Arabic script which WAS NOT IN USE during Uthman's caliphate; also, these Qur'anic copies are being passed off as the alleged "Uthman" Qur'an at Tashkent, Uzbekistan; they are most certainly NOT that Kufic-scripted Qur'an; I am having great difficulty in downloading the actual photos of the Tashkent Qur'an attributed to Uthman; however, anyone can view it on the internet and match it up with these copies that the orthodox "Muslim" scholarship is trying to pass off as "Uthman" Qur'ans :

post-25505-12551981214814_thumb.jpg

post-25505-12551981368751_thumb.jpg

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how the scholars confirmed their authenticity? How do they ensure that the copies were truly written down by Imams instead of someone else (for instance, their followers)?

Salam.

So from Qur'anic linguistic scholars, Efim Rezvan and Francois Deroche, we now have NINE FALSELY ATTRIBUTED Holy Qur'ans to Uthman ibn al-Affan :

In Tashkent, Samarkand, Bukhara, Katta Langar; Uzbekistan = 4

In St. Petersburg, Russia = 1

In Cairo, Egypt = 2

In Istanbul, Turkey = 2

THEY ALL ARE IN KUFIC ARABIC SCRIPT WHICH WAS BARELY COMPLETED IN ITS DEVELOPMENT WHEN UTHMAN WAS ASSASSINATED IN 656 A.D.

THE BRAND NEW KUFIC ARABIC SCRIPT WAS ADOPTED BY CALIPH ALI for the transition of the Holy Qur'an from OT[Oral Tradition] to WT[Written Tradition]; immediately following this, Caliph Ali formally ESTABLISHED the Kufic Arabic script in the Arabian Peninsula. These are historical FACTS and can be verified through forensic archaeology...

Archaeological Fact : the FIRST copies of the Holy Qur'an in written tradition ARE IN KUFIC SCRIPT.

The main distinction between archaeology and history, is that history includes a mixture of facts, fallacies, myths, folklore, and legends, while archaeology deals only with FACTS.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how the scholars confirmed their authenticity?

Salam.

This question should really be directed at those FALSELY ATTRIBUTED NINE Holy Qur'ans to Uthman ibn al-Affan by orthodox "Muslim" scholars...

Finally, here are photographs of the actual Tashkent Holy Qur'an FALSELY ATTRIBUTED to Uthman ibn al-Affan :

post-25505-12552298820774.jpg

post-25505-12552299133823.jpg

And in comparison, down below, are internet photocopies of supposedly this very same Holy Qur'an which is being fraudulently passed off as the alleged "Uthman" Qur'an of Tashkent, Uzbekistan at Hast-Imam[Khazrati Imom] Library :

post-25505-12552301030716_thumb.jpg

post-25505-12552301241436_thumb.jpg

Anyone can observe the FRAUD that is being perpetrated by some orthodox "Muslim" scholars and standard Islamic websites and forums...

Also, there is an interesting story attached to this particular Holy Qur'anic parchment : Supposedly, Uthman ibn al-Affan was reading this very copy when he was assassinated and his blood spilled all over this Tashkent Qur'an; however, when this Qur'anic parchment was carefully examined by some linguistic scholars, there was ABSOLUTELY NO BLOOD STAINS ANYWHERE TO BE FOUND, just some discolorization on some sheets caused by moisture.

It is truly shameful and disgraceful, that such methods are deployed in FALSELY ATTRIBUTING Holy Qur'ans to Uthman ibn al-Affan, who historically was NEVER really involved with transitioning the Holy Qur'an from OT[Oral Tradition] to WT[Written Tradition]...

But has been falsely accredited with doing so by standard "Islamic" scholarship...And which is something that they will NEVER be able to prove archaeologically because it never happened.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how the scholars confirmed their authenticity?

Salam.

Some more instances of FRAUD perpetrated by ultra-orthodox "Muslim" scholarship...

The case of Muawiyah ibn "Abu Sufyan"(602-680 A.D.) supposedly appointing Abul Aswad Duali to devise Arabic diacritical marks...

This is FALSE because THERE ARE NO QUR'ANS AT ALL FROM MUAWIYAH'S CALIPHATE TO HAVE BEEN FOUND ANWHERE.

The case of Abdul Malik bin Marwan ibn al-Hakam(646-705 A.D.) supposedly appointing Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf al-Kulayb(661-714 A.D.) to devise Arabic diacritical marks...Al-Hajjaj, then supposedly, in his turn, charged Nasr ibn Aseem and Hayy ibn Yaamor to accomplish it.

This is also FALSE because THERE ARE NO QUR'ANS EXISTING AT ALL FROM ABDUL MALIK'S CALIPHATE FOUND ANYWHERE.

The Sanaa Quranic parchments, which are in extremely rare non-Kufic script, discovered in 1972, are the OLDEST Quranic copies found of the Umayyad Caliphate. They date to the caliphate of Al-Walid ibn Abdul Malik ibn Marwan(668-715 A.D.), who reigned from 705-715 A.D.; these Quranic parchments ALSO CONTAIN NO DIACRITICAL MARKS WHATSOEVER.

Archaeologically speaking, as it stands, Hafs bin Sulayman bin al-Mughirah bin Abi Dawud al-Asadi al-Kufi(709-796 A.D.) REMAINS the traditional scholar who devised Arabic diacritical marks. And he accomplised this shortly AFTER the overthrow of the Umayyad Caliphate in 750 A.D. by Abul Abbas as-Saffah, founder of the Abbasid Caliphate.

Below is a photocopy of the Sanaa Quranic parchments discovered by Gerd R. Puin of Staarland University in Germany :

post-25505-12552357132734.jpg

As one can clearly observe, there ARE NO DIACRITICAL MARKS VISIBLE. So the historical accounts of Muawiyah ibn "Abu Sufyan" and Abdul Malik bin Marwan appointing "Muslim" scholars to devise Arabic diacritical marks are FALSE. Otherwise, why would Quranic parchments from the reign of Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid ibn Abdul Malik NOT HAVE DIACRITCAL MARKS ?

Also from a review of Gerd R. Puin's exmination, the following was found :

Puin has extensively examined the parchment fragments found in this collection. It reveals unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. Some of the manuscripts are rare examples of those written in early Hijazi[Mai'ili] Arabic script.

They are also palimpsests -- versions written over even earlier, s[Edited Out]ed-off versions.

Puin's study and examination also raises the hypothesis that the Umayyad's may have tried to actually CHANGE THE VERSES OF THE HOLY QUR'AN.

I am in no way a supporter of Gerd Puin in any of his assertions of the history of the Holy Qur'an, but the circumstantial probability that the Umayyad's DID INDEED attempt to ALTER THE HOLY QUR'ANIC texts definitely warrants further investigation and research. Puin may have stumbled onto something which he may not be fully aware of himself...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you refer to me as "Muslims" with the "" signs? Are you suggesting that I'm not a Muslim? Or I'm not a Shia? It's rather offensive. As Muslims, please let's discuss with the proper akhlaq. You even accuse me of having agreeing to this sentence, which I have never stated at all:

but will READILY ACCEPT that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, even Muwawiyah, had supposedly ordered Holy Qur'ans to be written down

Let me state this to you. The questions that I give you are the questions that have been bugging me for so long. I asked you because I think you have a unique perspective that may shed some light to my questions. I hope I'm not wrong in my expectations.

So, again, if you will, please let's discuss rationally & without any accusations. Moreover, if you have a theory, you better start thinking like an outsider: start questioning your premises & conclusions ferociously. This way, you'll be ready when someone asked you hard questions & you can answered calmly.

I think maybe we have different priorities. Yours are to prove that in fact there is the classic (Sunni) story of Quran codifications were false. Mine are the absence of diacritical & vowel marks in the early codices when in fact they are very important (I have several others, but let's focus on this 1 first).

Back to the topic:

You must remember that Islam is for all human, not Arabic speaker only. So, diacritical & vowel marks are very important to ensure that everyone read the Quran in the same way. Even the the presence of Arabic speakers can't avoid the emergence of the different readings. I think you are familiar with these different readings: "maaliki" vs "maliki" reading in Al-Fatihah: 4 & "arjulakum" vs "arjulikum" reading in Al-Maidah:6, "ilyasin" vs "ali yasin" in Ash-Shaffat: 130, etc.

The only thing that can prevent this is the diacritical & vowel marks. But, even in the Mushaf attributed to the Imams, they are not present. This is what bugging me. What were the possible reasons on why they didn't take this necessary preventive measure?

Edited by rzairul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you refer to me as "Muslims" with the "" signs? Are you suggesting that I'm not a Muslim? Or I'm not a Shia? It's rather offensive. As Muslims, please let's discuss with the proper akhlaq. You even accuse me of having agreeing to this sentence, which I have never stated at all:

Let me state this to you. The questions that I give you are the questions that have been bugging me for so long. I asked you because I think you have a unique perspective that may shed some light to my questions. I hope I'm not wrong in my expectations.

So, again, if you will, please let's discuss rationally & without any accusations. Moreover, if you have a theory, you better start thinking like an outsider: start questioning your premises & conclusions ferociously. This way, you'll be ready when someone asked you hard questions & you can answered calmly.

I think maybe we have different priorities. Yours are to prove that in fact there is the classic (Sunni) story of Quran codifications were false. Mine are the absence of diacritical & vowel marks in the early codices when in fact they are very important (I have several others, but let's focus on this 1 first).

Back to the topic:

You must remember that Islam is for all human, not Arabic speaker only. So, diacritical & vowel marks are very important to ensure that everyone read the Quran in the same way. Even the the presence of Arabic speakers can't avoid the emergence of the different readings. I think you are familiar with these different readings: "maaliki" vs "maliki" reading in Al-Fatihah: 4 & "arjulakum" vs "arjulikum" reading in Al-Maidah:6, "ilyasin" vs "ali yasin" in Ash-Shaffat: 130, etc.

The only thing that can prevent this is the diacritical & vowel marks. But, even in the Mushaf attributed to the Imams, they are not present. This is what bugging me. What were the possible reasons on why they didn't take this necessary preventive measure?

Salam.

I apologize if I have offended you with my previous response. However, I think I answered the question about the Hashimite Sayeds NOT using diacritical marks already in my very first response...

That is a question only they can properly answer...

I offered a theory...

You mentioned that your priorities were the absence of diacritics...Yet, my brother, it was you who brought up the Abu Bakr-Umar story regarding Hazrat Ali...Not me. You questioned how we could have a Caliph Ali Qur'an, when he was supposed to have discarded it because Abu Bakr and Umar REJECTED it.

First of all, do you really believe Asadullah Ghalib would discard the word of Allah(swt) because Abu Bakr or Umar have any kind of qualification to REJECT Allah's word by Prophet Muhammad's spiritual heir..? Every great prophet of Allah(swt) had their disciples who were entrusted with the divine message...

When Prophet Muhammad stated : I am the city of knowledge, Ali is its gate...Meant that Nabih Muhammad(s.a.w.) had the knowledge of Allah's revelations...And Ali was its hafiz or preservationist. Ali preserved the original Qur'anic revelation in writing and also understood its multiple meanings and metaphors...

From some of your queries, it sure sounded as though you were questioning the authenticity of the Aimma's handwritten Qur'ans because of the absence of diacritics...

And then you even offered a solution regarding the Aimma's calligraphed Qur'ans....

Technically, you answered your own questions...

My perspective isn't really unique at all...It's just applying logic and common sense with the concept of Qur'anic Archaeology...Something very few seem to pursue...

I also don't have to come to any conclusions on my premises simply because THERE ARE NO QUR'ANS EXISTING TODAY THAT CAN BE AUTHENTICALLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE ABU BAKRS, UMARS, UTHMANS, MUAWIYAH'S, etc., etc...

What hard questions can anyone possibly ask regarding Holy Qur'ans that have been attributed to people that ARCHAEOLOGY cannot produce ?

It's a mute point, really...

Again, I apologize if I have offended you...

The quotation marks "..." regarding Muslims is used by me because there never should be any such thing as salafi/shia/sunni/"wahhabi"/ahmadiyya/islmaili--"muslims"...That is straight from Allah(swt) in the Holy Qur'an...

If you have paid close attention to the Holy Qur'anic ayahs, Allah(swt) mostly uses the word mumin or muminin for us..."Muslim" is something we have to strive to be before we die...Just as He narrated about the advice Nabih Yaqub Israil gave to his sons before passing on. None of us can be true "muslims" if we have to qualify our practices of Islam.

You are absolutely right that the Holy Qur'an is FOR ALL HUMANITY.

Also, try not to have any expectations from anyone except Almighty Allah(swt), this way you will never be disappointed...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic:

You must remember that Islam is for all human, not Arabic speaker only. So, diacritical & vowel marks are very important to ensure that everyone read the Quran in the same way. Even the the presence of Arabic speakers can't avoid the emergence of the different readings. I think you are familiar with these different readings: "maaliki" vs "maliki" reading in Al-Fatihah: 4 & "arjulakum" vs "arjulikum" reading in Al-Maidah:6, "ilyasin" vs "ali yasin" in Ash-Shaffat: 130, etc.

The only thing that can prevent this is the diacritical & vowel marks. But, even in the Mushaf attributed to the Imams, they are not present. This is what bugging me. What were the possible reasons on why they didn't take this necessary preventive measure?

Salam.

I copy-pasted this off of the www.islam-guide.com website :

The absence of diacritical marks, for example, could make a verb either active or passive and in some instances, masculine or feminine. More often than not however, this was hardly of any great consequence since the context indicated the meaning in many instances.

The 114 suras were arranged in decreasing order of length; there were nevertheless exceptions. The chronological sequence of the Revelation was not followed. In the majority of cases however, this sequence is known. A large number of descriptions are mentioned at several points in the text, sometimes giving rise to repetitions. Very frequently a passage will add details to a description that appears elsewhere in an incomplete form. Everything connected with modern science is, like many subjects dealt with in the Quran, scattered throughout the book without any semblance of classification.

* It is imporatnt to say that Quran was collected during the Prophet's lifetime. The Prophet, and before his death, had showed the collection of Quran scrolls to Gabriel many times. So, what is said in regard to collecting of Quran during the ruling period of the Caliphs after the Prophet means copying the same original copy written in the Prophet's life which later were sent to different countries, and it does not mean the recording or writing of Quran through oral sources as it may be thought. Yet, many of the Companions have written the Quran exactly during the lifetime of the Prophet. One of those was Imam Ali's copy. He, because of his close relation with the Prophet, his long companionship, didn't only collect the dispersed scrolls of the Quran, but he rather could accompany it with a remarkable Tafseer, mentioning the occasion of each verse's descension, and was regarded the first Tafseer of Quran since the beginning of the Islamic mission. Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed says," All the scholars agree that Imam Ali is the first one who collected the Quran," (see Sharhul Nahj, 271). Another one, Kittani, says that Imam Ali could arrange the Quran according to each surah's order of descension, (see Strategic Administration, 461). Ibn Sireen Tabe'ee relates from 'Ikrimeh, who said that 'lmam Ali could collect the Quran in a manner that if all mankind and jinn gathered to do that, they could not do it at all,' (see al-Itqan 1157-58). Ibn Jizzi Kalbi also narrates, "If only we could have the Quran which was collected by Ali then we could gain a lot of knowledge," (see al-Tasheel, 114). That was only a brief note about the benefits of Imam Ali's Mus'haf, as Ibn Sireen had declared, "I searched so long for Imam Ali's Mus'haf and I correspounded with Medina, but all my efforts gone in vain.' (see al-Itqan, 1/58, al-Tabaqat,2/338). Thus; it becomes certain that Quran has been collected by Imam Ali without simple difference between it and other known copies, except in the notes mentioned by Him which renders it as the most excellent copy has ever been known. Unfortunately, the inconvenient political conditions emerged after the demise of the Prophet, (i.e after the wicked issue of Saqeefah) was a main obstacle to get benefits from that remarkable copy of the Quran.

--------------------------------------------

Ibn Sireen had been searching for the Qur'anic Anthology of Caliph Ali, which included the original tafseer[exegesis]...This master copy was completed before the end of Abu Bakr's caliphate in 634 A.D.; it was said to be presented to Umar who supposedly rejected it. However, its archaeological search even in our day-and-age, could possibly prove the ultimate goal for "Qur'anists"...

This Qur'anic Anthology of Hazrat Ali was in upright form of what came to be called the Ma'ili script.

Caliph Ali, had also personally calligraphed in Kufic script, one-or-two more handwritten Holy Qur'ans, but without the tafseer attached to them. The Ali Codex of Dar Al-Kutub Al-Alawiyah in Najaf, Iraq is one of them...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moreover, if you have a theory, you better start thinking like an outsider: start questioning your premises & conclusions ferociously. This way, you'll be ready when someone asked you hard questions & you can answered calmly.

I think maybe we have different priorities. Yours are to prove that in fact there is the classic (Sunni) story of Quran codifications were false.

Salam.

Just a clarification...

You see in order to prove Abul Aswad Duali[his full name is very long] did add the red dot diacritics to the Holy Qur'an, you have to have Duali's Qurans...Also, Duali's alleged Qurans would had to have his personal signature and date, as well.

There have been none found to this day...There have been Qurans that are a couple of centuries later which have red dots as diacritics. But NONE by Duali. Therefore, ARCHAEOLOGICALLY, this hadith is just another story with no PROOF WHATSOEVER.

Then, even if Qurans by Duali were to be found, then there has to be documented evidence that PROVE that Duali did this at Muawiyah's behest. That is a separate proof. Just because Duali's Qurans are ever found, then the next step would be able to prove that Muawiyah had commissioned them...That would also require documented requisitions by Muawiyah that indicate this...But as it stands, NO SUCH ITEMS HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND TO THIS DAY. Just some more FAKE ahadith.

Personally, I place very little value TO MOST AHADITH. I'm a pure Qur'anist. Archaeologically, the Holy Qur'an is REAL...It is HERE AND NOW WITH US. We have the Ali Codice that vouches its UNALTERED status. We have subsequent very early Holy Qur'anic Codice by Prophet Muhammad's BIOLOGICAL descendants in the Hashimite Sayeds as RECONFIRMATION that the Quranic message is UNALTERED to this day. Again, ARCHAEOLOGICAL FACTS. The Qur'anic codice by Hasan b. Ali; Husayn b. Ali; Ali b. al-Husayn; and Mohd. al-Baqir are LANDMARKS in that they bridge chronological gaps.

No STORIES about Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah, Marwan, Abdul Malik ordered Qur'ans...Which have yet to be found to this day. The NINE FALSELY ATTRIBUTED Holy Qur'ans to Uthman ibn al-Affan are an example of PATHETIC ineptitude by our orthodox, standard uleyma.

The earliest copies of Umayyad Era Qurans to have been found, have raised alarming questions as to whether the Umayyads tried to ALTER the sacred texts as from Gerd R. Puin's report...

Muawiyah, like Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, was historically NEVER known to have been a calligrapher...

I'm just giving the above scenario as an example.

The Ganjineh-Ye-Qoran Museum of Mashhad in Iran, has 12,000 HANDWRITTEN HOLY QUR'ANS; the WORLD'S LARGEST COLLECTION...Including the handwritten ones by Caliph Ali[This is the other existing Ali Codex besides the one at Alawiyah Library in Najaf, Iraq]; Imam Hasan; Imam Husayn; Imam Zaynul Abidin; Imam Sadiq; and Imam Raza. These specific Qur'ans are ALL in Kufic script without diacritics and bear their personal signatures and Hijri dates...The Surahs[scriptures] are all on deerskin parchment and are in CHRONOLOGICAL order, NOT in the current order that is in circulation worldwide.

This library is a treasure-chest for Qur'anists from a purely archaeological perspective. No Christian, Judaic, "Hindu", or even atheist scholars that are critical of the Holy Qur'an's historicity will feel the same if they visit Ganjineh-Ye-Qoran Museum at Mashhad, Iran...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

Thanks for the answer. Do we have know from hadiths what the correct reading is from 7-10 different readings?

Wa Alaykum As-Salam.

Do your own research. Rely on no one...Especially any and all AHADITH or established tafseers[exegesis]...They will only confuse you further.

Try and study as many Arabic-English dictionaries as possible for the multiple meanings and pronunciations of Arabic words with the very same spelling. Surprisingly, Arabic and English have a lot in common in this aspect.

For inspiration, watch and listen on YouTube[for instance] how new converts to Islam were inspired by the translated words of the Holy Qur'an...The miraculour power of the Holy Qur'an is that it TRANSCENDS language barriers and translations.

Trust in your own niyat[intention] and the guidance of the Holy Qur'an as Allah's undisputed words.

Just as you stated, even with DIACRITICAL marks, there are 7-10 different meanings of the Quranic ayahs...

As stated from the Islam-Guide website I copy-pasted :

The context indicates its meanings...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, if you have a theory, you better start thinking like an outsider: start questioning your premises & conclusions ferociously. This way, you'll be ready when someone asked you hard questions

Salam.

The outsider(s) us Muminin[i.e. Muslimin] should be worried about that would question our premises & conclusions in a possibly ferocious manner, replete with hard questions are someone like John Gilchrist of Answering Islam...

Before I copy-paste his lengthy essay, I would like to first present Almighty Allah's communications regarding His Holy Qur'an :

Surah Ha Mim/Al-Fussilat[Explained In Detail]

41:40

Lo! those who distort Our revelations are not hid from Us. Is he who is hurled into the Fire better, or he who cometh secure on the Day of Resurrection? Do what ye will. Lo! He is Seer of what ye do.

41:41

Those who reject the Message when it comes to them (are not hidden from Us). And indeed it is a Book of exalted power.

41:42

No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.

Surah Al-Hijr[The Rocky Tract]

15:9

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

Surah Al-Buruj[The Constellation]

85:21

Nay! it is a glorious Quran,

85:22

(Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved!

Surah Al-Baqarah[The Heifer]

2:23

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.

2:24

But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.

Surah Yunus[Jonas]

10:37

This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.

10:38

Or say they: He hath invented it? Say: Then bring a surah like unto it, and call (for help) on all ye can besides Allah, if ye are truthful.

Surah Hud

11:13

Or they say: He hath invented it. Say: Then bring ten surahs, the like thereof, invented, and call on everyone ye can beside Allah, if ye are truthful!

Surah At-Tur[The Mount]

52:33

Or do they say, "He fabricated the (Message)"? Nay, they have no faith!

52:34

Let them then produce a recital like unto it,- If (it be) they speak the truth!

Surah Bani Israil[Children Of Israel] / Al-Asra[The Night Journey]

17:88

Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

---------------------------------------

Now the above Qur'anic Ayats[Verses] make it VERY CLEAR that the Holy Qur'an is Almighty Allah's indisputable word which IS GUARDED AND CANNOT BE ALTERED...

However, if the orthodox or standard Muslim Uleyma[scholars] persist in upholding the historical MYTH and FALLACY of an "UTHMANIC RECENSION" of the Holy Qur'an, then they not only have committed flagrant KUFR[Disbelief/Ingratitude] & SHIRK[Polytheism/Association], but have caste doubt and uncertainty about the HISTORICITY of the Holy Qur'an which is the VERY FOUNDATION of Islam...

Even though lengthy, READ very carefully, the following copy-paste of this essay by John Gilchrist of Answering Islam; then it will become apparent why the whole UTHMANIC RECENSION of the Holy Qur'an MYTH is a COMPLETE DISASTER for the Muslim Ummah...

The one curious thing about this essay is that John Gilchrist makes ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION AT ALL OF THE Qur'anic Codice of the Hashimite Sayeds[From Caliph Ali to Imam Ali ar-Raza] which are in physical existence today at Ganjineh-Ye-Qoran Museum in Mashhad, Iran and at Dar Al-Kutub Al-Alawiyah in Najaf, Iraq...

THE UTHMANIC RECENSION OF THE QUR'AN

1. DID ABU BAKR'S CODEX HAVE OFFICIAL STATUS?

What, ultimately, was the status of the Qur'an text codified by Zaid ibn Thabit for Abu Bakr? Was it merely a private text assembled for the convenience of the Caliph or was it intended to be an official recension for the growing Muslim community? To answer these questions one has to enquire into what happened to this manuscript after it had been compiled and the information furnished to us reads as follows:

  • Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with Umar, till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of Umar ra.gif. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).

Each one of the three possessors of this codex was a person of considerable prominence. Abu Bakr and Umar were Muhammad's immediate successors, the first and second caliphs of the Muslim world respectively. Hafsah, likewise, was a leading figure, being specifically described in the Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud as both bint Umar (the daughter of Umar, p.7) and zauj an-nabi (the wife of the Prophet, p.85). The codex was, therefore, certainly retained as the official copy of the first two Muslim rulers and was thereafter committed to an obviously distinctive caretaker of the text. It is another question, however, whether this copy became the official standardised collection of the Qur'an for the whole Muslim community.

Any collection made for Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, must nonetheless have had some special status especially as its nominated compiler Zaid ibn Thabit was widely regarded as one of the foremost authorities on the Qur'an text. His effort to compile as authentic a record as he could of the original Qur'an as it was handed down by Muhammad can only be highly commended and the overall authenticity of the resultant codex cannot be seriously challenged. It can fairly be concluded that Zaid's text was one of great importance and its retention in official custody during the caliphates respectively of Abu Bakr and Umar testify to its key significance during the time of the Qur'an's initial codification. There can be little doubt, however, that this codex was at no time publicised during those first two caliphates or declared to be the official text for the whole Muslim world. Desai argues that there was no need to "standardize and promulgate this collection as the only official text" at that time as the Qur'an was, according to him, still perfectly retained in the memories of the huffaz among the companions of Muhammad who remained alive (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.31). We have already seen that claims for the perfect knowledge of the Qur'an in the memories of the sahaba are based on assumptions and we cannot accept that Abu Bakr's codex was not given any public impact after its compilation because there was no need for this while Muhammad's companions still had it in their memories. It was precisely because Abu Bakr and Umar perceived the need for a carefully codified written text of the Qur'an as against reliance on the memories of men alone that it was put together in the first place.

It is more likely that Abu Bakr and Umar recognised that there were other masters of the text of the Qur'an, such as Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Mu'adh ibn Jabal and others we have already mentioned alongside Zaid ibn Thabit, who were authorities of equal standing with him and who were qualified to produce authentic codices of the Qur'an in written form.

The manuscript compiled by Zaid, highly prized as it was, nevertheless was not regarded with any greater authority than the others once these began to be put together and it was for this reason, therefore, that Zaid's codex was not publicly imposed on the whole community as the officially sanctioned text of the Qur'an.

Zaid's text was, in fact, virtually concealed after its compilation. Upon the death of Umar it passed into the private keeping of Hafsah, very much a recluse after Muhammad's death. Far from being given official publicity, it was virtually set aside and given no publicity at all. Desai suggests that it was "guarded" during those years "for future use" when the qurra among Muhammad's companions had finally passed away (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.31), but there is nothing in the earliest records to suggest that Zaid's text was compiled purely through foresight as to future conditions. Rather it was a perceived immediate need for a single written text that occasioned its compilation.

At the time of its codification Zaid knew that his text could not be regarded as an absolutely perfect record as some passages were acknowledged as having been lost and the redactor himself overlooked at least two verses until he was reminded of them by Abu Khuzaima. If Zaid and Abu Bakr were persuaded that his text was unquestionably authentic to the last word and letter, it would almost certainly have been given immediate public prominence.

On the other hand, if Zaid knew that it was only relatively authentic and no more accurate than the many other codices simultaneously being compiled by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and others, we can understand why it quickly disappeared into relative obscurity. By the time Uthman became caliph, although the other codices were gaining prominence in the various provinces, this codex had in fact receded into the private custody of one of the widows of the Prophet of Islam who simply kept it indefinitely in her personal care. It may have been compiled under official supervision, but it was never regarded as the actual official and solely authentic text of the Qur'an. It had become just one of many codices of equal authority that had been put together at roughly the same time.

2. UTHMAN'S ORDER TO BURN THE OTHER CODICES.

About nineteen years after the death of Muhammad, when Uthman had succeeded Abu Bakr and Umar as the third Caliph of Islam, a major new development took place in the standardising of the Qur'an text. The Muslim general Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman led an expedition into northern Syria, drawing his troops partly from Syria and partly from Iraq. It was not long before disputes arose between them as to the correct reading of the Qur'an. They had come from Damascus and Hems, from Kufa and Basra, and in each centre the local Muslims had their own codex of the Qur'an. The codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud became the standard text for the Muslims at Kufa in Iraq while the codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b became revered in Syria. Hudhayfah was disturbed at this and, after consulting Salid ibn al-As, he reported the matter to Uthman. What followed is described in the following hadith:

  • Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

For the first time in the official works of the Hadith literature we read of other codices that were being compiled, in addition to the one done by Zaid for Abu Bakr, and that these were widely accepted and well-known, certainly far more so than the codex of Zaid which by this time was in the private possession of Hafsah. While some of those texts consisted only of a selection of portions, it is clearly stated that others were complete codices of the whole Qur'an.
What was the motive for Uthman's order that these other codices should be destroyed and that the codex of Zaid alone should be preserved and copied out to be sent in replacement of the other texts to the various provinces? Was it because there were serious errors in these texts and that Zaid's alone could be considered a perfect redaction of the original text? There is nothing in the original records to suggest that this was the motive. The following tradition gives a more balanced picture of the circumstances and causes which prompted Uthman's action and why he chose Zaid's codex as the basis on which the Qur'an text was to be standardised for the Muslim community. Ali is reported to have said of Uthman:
  • By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your opinion in this matter of qira'at (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying 'My reading is superior to your reading'. That is a perversion of the truth. We asked him, 'What is your view (on this)?' He answered, 'My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement'. We replied, 'What a wonderful idea!' Someone from the gathering there asked, 'Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?' They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of Sa'id ibn al-'As and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (Uthman) said, 'Let the one write and the other dictate'. Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22).

The motive is twice stated in this extract to simply be the desire to bring consensus among the Muslims on the basis of a single Qur'an text. It was not to destroy the other manuscripts because they were considered unreliable but rather to prevent future dissension among the inhabitants of the different provinces. Desai, who agrees that these other codices were authentic texts of the Qur'an, states that they were destroyed purely to obtain uniformity in the text. He reasons that Zaid's codex was the "official" text and that the others were unofficially transcribed, but does not regard the variant readings in them as evidence of corruption of the text but rather as illustrative of the fact that, according to a hadith text, the Qur'an was revealed in seven different ways (cf. chapter 5). He says:

  • The simplest and safest way to ensure the prevalence of the standardized copy was to eliminate all other copies. (Desai, op.cit., p.33).

It was this objective alone - the "prevalence of a standardized copy", the unity of the Muslims on the basis of a single text - that motivated Uthman's action. After all, this was the reason why Hudhayfah had approached him the first place. "It was Hudhayfah who impressed upon Uthman ra.gif the need to assemble the texts into a single text" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.35), Thus Desai adds that "The gathering and elimination of all other copies besides the standardized text was merely to ensure uniformity" (op.cit., p.33). Just as Abu Bakr, at the time of the first recension of the Qur'an, had sought to obtain a complete record of the text from all the diverse sources whence it could be obtained, so now Uthman sought to standardise the text as against the varying codices that were gaining authority in the different centres.
Why, then, did he choose Zaid's codex as the basis for this purpose? The tradition quoted above once again underlines the authority that Zaid enjoyed in respect of the text of the Qur'an and the overall authenticity of his codex could not be disputed, It was also done, as we have seen, under official supervision but cannot be regarded as having become the official text, the other codices having been "compiled unofficially" (Desai, op.cit., p.32). Its almost immediate concealment from public view and the lack of publicity given to it are proofs that it was never intended to be regarded as the standard text of the Qur'an.
Unlike the codices which were gaining fame and widespread acceptance in the provinces, Zaid's text was conveniently close at hand and, not being known among the Muslims in those provinces, it was not regarded as a rival text. The standardising of a Medinan text at the seat of Uthman's government also enabled him to suppress the popularity and authority of other reciters in areas where Uthman's rule had become unpopular because he was placing members of his own family, the descendants of Umayya who had opposed Muhammad for many years, in positions of authority over and above many more well-known companions who had been faithful to him throughout his mission. Zaid's text was, therefore, not chosen because it was believed to be superior to the others but because it conveniently suited Uthman's purposes in standardising the text of the Qur'an.
Uthman called for this text and it became promptly transformed from a private text shielded for many years in almost complete public obscurity into the official codex of the Qur'an for the whole Muslim community. It was Uthman who standardised Zaid's codex as the official text and gave it widespread prominence, not Abu Bakr. While Zaid was clearly one of the foremost authorities on the Qur'an his text as compiled under Abu Bakr cannot be regarded as having been more authentic than the others. The "official" supervision of its compilation was only that of the elected successor to Muhammad. Had it been the Prophet of Islam himself who had authorised and supervised the codification of the text, it could well have laid claim to being the official text of the Qur'an, but it was only the product of a well-meaning successor compiled by but one of the most approved authorities on the text. (We are not dealing here with a compilation ordered and supervised by the Prophet of Islam with a divine guarantee of its absolutely perfect preservation but rather with an honest attempt by a young man, ultimately at his own discretion as to what should be included or excluded, and that only under the eye of a subsequent leader, to produce as accurate a text as he possibly could).
Once again it must be borne in mind that, once compiled, Abu Bakr did not impose it upon the Muslim community as Uthman later did, so it cannot be regarded as having become the official codex of the Qur'an before Uthman's time as Desai and others wish to believe.
Uthman's action was drastic, to say the least. Not one of the other codices was exempted from the order that they be destroyed. It can only be assumed that the differences in reading between the various texts was so vast that the Caliph saw no alternative to an order for the standardising of one of the texts and the annihilation of the rest. The fact that none of the other texts was spared shows that none of the codices, Zaid's included, agreed with any of the others in its entirety. There must have been serious textual variants between the texts to warrant such action. One cannot assume that Zaid's text, hidden from public view, just happened to be the perfect text and that, wherever it differed from the others, they must have been in error. Such a convenient shielding of this codex from the disputes about the reading of the Qur'an is unacceptable when the matter is considered objectively.
Zaid's text was simply one of a number of codices done by the companions of Muhammad after his death and shared in the variant readings found between them all. In its favour is the consideration that it had been compiled under Abu Bakr by one of the foremost authorities of the Qur'an. Its preference also depended, however, on the fact that, not being widely known, it had been sheltered from the disputes surrounding the others and it was, of course, conveniently close at hand.
Furthermore, it was not an official text as we have seen but a compilation done by just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, in the same way as those of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and the others had been compiled. It was not the authorised text of Muhammad himself but simply one form of it among many then in existence and uncorroborated in every single point by the others in circulation. It was compiled under the discretion of only one man and came to official prominence purely because Uthman chose it as the appropriate one to represent the single codex he wanted to establish for the whole Muslim community.
Modern Muslim writers who make bold claims for the absolute perfection of the Qur'an text as it stands today are aware that evidences of a host of different readings in the earliest manuscripts will make such claims sound hollow indeed, so they argue that the differences were not in the texts themselves but only in the pronunciation of the Qur'an as it was recited.
Siddique states this argument in the following way: "'Usman was not standardising one out of several texts. There never was more than one text. 'Usman was standardizing the recitation of the Qur'an and making sure that it would remain in the dialect of the Quraish in which it was originally revealed. He was concerned at points of difference in intonation between Iraqi and Syrian troops in the Islamic army" (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.2). The claim is that, if there were any differences in reading, they were only in pronunciation, in "the recitation" and "intonation" of the text. This argument is based entirely on faulty premises. Pronunciation, recitation and intonation relate only to a verbal recital of the text and such differences would never have appeared in the written texts. Yet it was the destruction of these written texts that Uthman ordered.
We need to consider further that, in the earliest days of the codification of the Qur'an in writing, there were no vowel points in the texts. Thus differences in recitation would never have appeared in the written codices. Why, then, did Uthman burn them? There can only be one conclusion the differences must have existed in the texts themselves and, in the following three chapters, we shall see just how extensive those differences were. Uthman was standardising one text at the expense of the others and it was not little niceties in the finer points of recitation that occasioned his extreme action against the other codices but the prevalence of a vast number of variant readings in the text itself.

Muslims need to consider and ponder Uthman's action seriously. The Qur'an was believed to be the revealed Word of God and the codices then in existence were written out by the very closest companions of Muhammad himself. What value would be placed on those Qur'an manuscripts if they were still in existence today? These were hand-written codices carefully copied out, some as complete records of the whole Qur'an text, by the most prominent of Muhammad's companions who were regarded as authorities on the text. It was these codices that Uthman eliminated. Uthman burnt and destroyed complete manuscripts of the whole Qur'an copied out by Muhammad's immediate companions.

If there had not been serious differences between them, why would he thus have destroyed such cherished copies of what all Muslims believe to be the revealed Word of God? One cannot understand the casualness with which modern Muslim writers justify his action especially if, as Siddique claims, there had never been any differences in the texts. What would Muslims think if anyone had a ceremony today such as Uthman had then, and consigned a number of Qur'ans to the flames, especially if these were cherished hand-written texts of great antiquity? Uthman burnt such Qur'an texts and destroyed them. Only one explanation can account for this - there must have been so many serious variant readings between the texts themselves that the Caliph saw only one solution - the establishment of one of these as the official text for the whole Muslim community and the elimination of the others.
While Siddique emphatically declares "One Text, No Variants" and states that "there was never more than one text" (this clause is in bold letters in his article), Desai contradicts him by admitting that there were differences in the earliest texts, such differences including "textual variation" (op.cit., p.22), and by acknowledging that other codices were not necessarily identical to the one compiled by Zaid (p.23). Desai, however, also seeks to maintain the hypothesis that the Qur'an is word-perfect to this day, so he argues that all the variants that existed were part of the divinely authorised seven different readings of the Qur'an and states that, as these readings were not known to all the Muslims, Uthman wisely decided to destroy the evidences in the interests of obtaining a single text. He says:
  • Hadhrat Uthmaan's measure of eliminating all other authorized and true versions of the Qur'aan Majeed was necessitated by the disputes which arose in the conquered territories - disputes among new Muslims ignorant of the other forms of authorized Qira'at. Since a particular Ustaad imparted only a specific Qira'at, they remained unaware of the other authorized versions. . . . Scrutinizing each and every copy would have proven too laborious and difficult a task. The simplest and safest way to ensure the prevalence of the standardized copy was to eliminate all other copies. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.32,33).

So it became expedient to eliminate six authorised forms of Qira'at and retain just one and, although the most meticulous effort must have gone into writing and completing the other codices of the Qur'an, the reading of these texts would have been too much like hard work for the Caliph. One can only marvel at the manner in which such Muslims can unemotionally reason favourably about the wholesale destruction of what are said to have been authentic codices of the book they cherish so dearly. It would be interesting to see what the maulana's reaction would be if someone today ordered a similar destruction of such highly-prized hand-written texts of the Qur'an for such expedient reasons as he gives in these quotes, or if someone decided to make a film of the events surrounding Uthman's decree.

The order to consign all but one of the Qur'ans in existence to the flames at such a crucial time cannot be explained away so lightly. Muslim writers are not seriously assessing the gravity of Uthman's decree. As we shall see, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud reacted very strongly to Uthman's order and we are also informed that when Uthman enquired into the grievances among the Muslims who were rising in opposition to him, one of their complaints against him was his destruction of the other Qur'an codices, that he had "obliterated the Book of Allah" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.36). They significantly did not just say it was the masahif (manuscripts), the usual word used for the Qur'an codices compiled before Uthman's decree, but the kitabullah, the "Scripture of Allah", to emphasise their severe antagonism to his wanton extermination of such important manuscripts of the Qur'an.

In the coming chapters we shall see just how extensive the variant readings were and how strongly the texts of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Zaid ibn Thabit, Abu Musa and others differed from each other. Let us here, however, briefly consider certain important developments in the standardising of Zaid's text as the preferred text of the Qur'an.

3. THE REVISION OF ZAID'S CODEX OF THE QUR'AN.

One would think, in the light of the bold claims that Zaid's text was always absolutely perfect, that even if it could not have been written out originally without a wide search for its contents, its reproduction at this stage would have been a simple matter of copying it out just as it stood. Yet we find even here further evidence that it was not previously looked on with any special favour or regarded as the official text of the Qur'an, for Uthman immediately ordered that a recension of his codex take place and that it be corrected where necessary. The record of what duly transpired reads as follows:

  • Narrated Anas ra.gif: 'Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts (of the Qur'an). 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, "If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur'an, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their language". So they acted accordingly. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.466).

We have already seen that Sa'id ibn al-As was regarded as an expert in the Arabic language and he and the other two redactors were chosen because they came from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca from which Muhammad too had come, whereas Zaid was from Medina. Uthman wanted the standardised Qur'an to be preserved in the Quraysh dialect in which Muhammad had originally delivered it. Accordingly, if these three found themselves differing with Zaid's text at any point, it was to be corrected and rewritten in the original dialect. Once again we cannot possibly be dealing purely with fine points of recitation or pronunciation, for any differences here would not have been reflected in the written text. Uthman clearly had actual amendments to the written text in mind when he summoned the four redactors together.

There is even evidence that Uthman went further than just requiring a committee of four to oversee the recension of Zaid's codex in that he became involved in a general consultation with a number of other prominent Muslims in Medina on the recension of the Qur'an and a more general revision may well have taken place (As-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.139).

Not only this but we find yet again that Zaid was to recall yet another verse that had been missing from the text. The record of this incident reads:

  • Zaid said 'I missed a verse from al-Ahzab (Surah 33) when we transcribed the mushaf (the written text of the Qur'an under Uthman's supervision). I used to hear the messenger of Allah (saw) reciting it. We searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: "From among the believers are men who are faithful in their covenant with Allah" (33.23). So we inserted it in the (relevant) surah in the text. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.138).

A similar record of the omission of what is now Surah 33.23 from the recension done under Uthman is recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 6, p.479). At first sight the story is very similar to the omission of the last two verses of Surat Bara'a in the compilation of the Qur'an text done by Zaid for Abu Bakr. A recension was done, a short passage was found to be omitted, and it was discovered with Khuzaima ibn Thabit. Added to this, as we have seen (page 35), is the hadith that traces the omission of the last two verses of Surat Bara'a (9. 127-128) to the time of Uthman's reign. Siddique, in consequence, states that the story of the missing verse from Surat al-Ahzab really refers to the verses from Surat Bara'a and that the hadith about these verses has a better authority than the tradition about the other verse (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.2).
It is not possible at this time in history to make any conclusive deductions in this respect, save and except to say that it does appear to be strange that it was only nineteen years after Muhammad's death that Zaid suddenly remembered, for the first time, another verse that was missing from the Qur'an and coincidentally found it with the same companion as the other two verses. We also saw that it was Khuzaimah himself who at that time brought the redactor's attention to the omission of the two verses from Surat Bara'a and, if yet another text was also omitted and known to him alone, it needs to be explained why he remained silent about it.
Desai, however, accepts the authority of the hadith at face value and explains the phenomenon by suggesting that Surah 33.23 was indeed included in Zaid's original codex but was overlooked when the copying of the texts took place under Uthman's recension and says, once again, that it was well known to "the numerous other Huffaaz" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.38). This argument just cannot stand the test of critical analysis.
The mushaf from which Zaid and his assistants copied the manuscripts was not destroyed along with the other codices but was returned to Hafsah after the work was complete, so if the relevant verse had been included in it, there would hardly have been any need for a search for it till it was found with Khuzaima. Likewise one cannot believe that, if it was included in the original codex, it suddenly became overlooked every time a copy was made for one of the provinces. To the extent that the hadith reflects a true development in the text of the Qur'an, Desai's argument about the meaning of its omission in the transcribed copies is quite simply untenable and does not hold water.
At face value the hadith can only mean that it was only after Zaid's second recension of the Qur'an text that he recalled the verse for the first time - a not too improbable occurrence if he had not been required to give detailed and exact attention to the actual authenticity of the text of the Qur'an in the years between his completion of the codex for Abu Bakr and Uthman's order for a second redaction.
Siddique argues, on the face value of the hadith, that it once again means that Zaid could not find it in writing with anyone else, implying that it was well-known in the memories of the sahaba. He argues against the translation of the hadith as we have given it in Zaid's words, namely "I missed a verse from al-Ahzab.." and says this is "slightly inaccurate" and that it should read "I could not find a verse.." (op.cit., p.2). In other words, Zaid did not entirely overlook the verse but, being well aware of it, merely struggled to find it in writing. The key word here in the hadith is faqada which means "to have lost, to be deprived of, to have mislaid", and is used in the context of the bereavement of someone who is deceased. Clearly therefore it means, in the context of this hadith, not that Zaid was trying to find a text in writing that was already well-known to everybody, but rather that he was seeking to recover a verse which had indeed been lost entirely from the text and could only be found with Khuzaima.
To the extent that this tradition is historically true it shows that even Zaid's original attempt to produce a codex as complete as it could be was not entirely successful and it was only after the other manuscripts had been copied out that the relevant verse was hastily included. More and more the arguments for a perfect Qur'an, nothing added or lost with no variants in the text, become untenable and are shown to be the fruits of pious sentiment alone.
4. THE QUR'AN TEXT AS STANDARDISED BY UTHMAN.
Uthman succeeded in his immediate objective, namely to impose a single text of the Qur'an on the Muslim world with the simultaneous destruction of all the other codices in existence. To the extent that the Muslim world today indeed has a single text of its revered scripture, it cannot be said that this text is a precise record of the Qur'an as Muhammad delivered it or that its claim to be inerrant was unchallenged by others which were brought to codification at the same time. It was not Allah who arranged the text exactly in the form in which it has come down but rather the young man Zaid and that only to the best of his ability and according to his own discretion, nor was it Muhammad who codified it for the Muslim ummah (community) but Uthman ibn Affan, and that only after a complete revision had taken place with the simultaneous destruction of the other codices which differed from it and which, nevertheless, were compiled by other companions of Muhammad whose knowledge of the Qur'an was in no degree inferior to that of Zaid ibn Thabit.
Even after the final recension of the Qur'an during Uthman's reign disputes still came to the fore in respect of the authenticity of the text. A very good example concerns a variant reading of Surah 2.238 which, in the Qur'an as standardised by Uthman, that is, the Qur'an as it stands today, reads: "Maintain your prayers, particularly the middle prayer (as-salaatil wustaa), and stand before Allah in devoutness". The variant reading of this Verse is given in this hadith:
Abu Yunus, freedman of Aishah, Mother of Believers, reported: Aishah ordered me to transcribe the Holy Qur'an and asked me to let her know when I should arrive at the verse Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin (2.238). When I arrived at the verse I informed her and she ordered: Write it in this way, Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa salaatiil 'asri wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin. She added that she had heard it so from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.64).

Aishah, a widow of the Prophet of Islam, stated that after the words wa salatil wusta ("the middle prayer") the scribe was to insert wa salatil asr ("and the afternoon prayer"), giving Muhammad himself as the direct authority for this reading. On the same page there is a very similar tradition wherein Hafsah, the daughter of Umar and another of Muhammad's wives, likewise ordered her scribe Amr ibn Rafi to make the same amendment to her text.

This could not have been the codex of Zaid in Hafsah's possession but was most probably a text written out for her before her father Umar died, whereupon she inherited Zaid's codex. Ibn Rafi made it plain he was writing the text at her express command and it is specifically referred to as a separate codex by Ibn Abi Dawud. Under the heading Mushaf Hafsah Zauj an-Nabi (saw) ("The Codex of Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet, <A name=p57 target=_blank>may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him") he gives a number of authorities for the tradition we are considering, showing that it was widely known, yet he records no other variant readings in her text. One of these traditions reads as follows:

  • It is reported by Abdullah on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abdul Malik who reported from Yazid (etc.) ... It is written in the codex of Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet (saw): "Observe your prayers, especially the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.87).

We are told that this variant, the addition of the words wa salatil asr after the words wa salatil wusta was also recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka'b as well as being found in the codex of Umm Salama, another of Muhammad's wives who survived him (Ibn Abi Dawud, op. cit., p.87). It was also recorded by Ibn Abbas.
This variant reading must have been recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka'b before the recension of the Qur'an under Uthman as his codex is definitely stated to have been one of those destroyed by Uthman and it is probable that it was so inscribed in the others as well. It did cause some discussion and concern after Uthman's recension, however, and the knowledge of its existence could not be suppressed. Some said it was an exhortation to particularly observe the afternoon prayer in addition to the middle prayer, whereas others said it was merely an elucidation of the standard text (that is, that the salatil-wusta was in fact the salatil-asr). An example of the latter interpretation reads as follows:
  • It is said by Abu Ubaid in his Fadhail al-Qur'an ("The Excellences of the Qur'an") that the purpose of a variant reading (al-qira'atash-shaathat) is to explain the standard reading (al-qira'atal-mash'huurat) and to illustrate its meaning, as in the (variant) reading of Aishah and Hafsah, waas-salaatiil wustaa salaatiil 'asr. (as-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.193).

It was the inability of Uthman to entirely suppress the evidences of such variant readings that led to the destruction of Hafsah's codex during the time when Marwan ibn al-Hakam was governor of Medina (by which time the seat of government in the Muslim world had passed to Damascus in Syria under Mu'awiya, the son of Muhammad's long-standing enemy Abu Sufyan who only became a Muslim upon the conquest of Mecca). While Hafsah was still alive she refused to give her codex up to him although he anxiously sought to destroy it (Ibn Abi Dawud, op.cit., p.24), and he only succeeded in obtaining it upon her death from her brother Abdullah ibn Umar, whereupon he destroyed it fearing, he said, that if it became well-known the variant readings Uthman sought to suppress would again recommence in the recitation of the Qur'an. (There are sources other than Ibn Abi Dawud which attribute other variant readings to Hafsah's codex, for example she read fii thikrillaah with Ibn Mas'ud for fii janbilaah in Surah 39.56). The Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an may well have established only one text as the authorised text for the whole Muslim world, but it simultaneously eliminated a wealth of codices which were widely accepted in the various provinces and which had as much right as Zaid's to be recognised as authentic copies. At-Tabari records (1.6.2952) that the people said to Uthman "The Qur'an was in many books, and you have now discredited them all but one", indicating that Zaid's text was not considered to enjoy any preference over them in authenticity or authority. Nevertheless, even though the codices were eliminated, the variant readings between them were recorded and well-known and in the next chapter we shall consider some of these and the codices in which they appeared, in particular those of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one thing, above all, that makes the above critical review utterly baseless is that there ARE NO COPIES OF ANY OF THOSE SUPPOSED HOLY QUR'ANS anywhere in existence in the world. Just a collection of surprisingly complicated AHADITH regarding them by the orthodox or standard Muslim scholarship...With the so-called "Uthman Standardized" Holy Qur'an being nothing but a MYTH.

However, at Ganjineh-Ye-Qoran Museum of Mashhad, Iran, the world's largest collection of handwritten Holy Qur'ans[12,000!], THERE EXIST THE OLDEST COPIES OF AUTHENTIC HOLY QUR'ANS, WHICH HAPPEN TO INCLUDE HANDWRITTEN COPIES BY SOME OF THE HASHIMITE SAYEDS/ISLAMIC AIMMA...From Caliph Ali to Imam Ali ar-Raza. ALL the Surahs[scriptures] of the handwritten Holy Qur'ans dated prior to the reign of Abbasid Caliph Harun ar-Rashid(786-809 A.D.), as displayed at the Ganjineh-Ye-Qoran Museum, are in CHRONOLOGICAL order...Just as the Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds/Islamic Aimma. They are NOT in the current order falsely attributed to Zayd bin Thabit al-Ansari[at the alleged decree of Uthman ibn al-Affan].

You see because of the LIE of the hadith regarding the Uthmanic Recension of the Holy Qur'an was perpetrated to give TOTALLY UNDUE credit to the preservation of the Kitab-ullah [Book Of The Divinity] to the Abu Bakrs, Umars, Hafsas, Uthmans, another THOUSAND LIES in Ahadith have been elaborately documented to support the original lie. So consequently, this MYTH perpetrated by the orthodox, standard "Muslim" uleyma[scholarship] has jeopardized the very INTEGRITY of the historicity of the Holy Qur'an...Not to mention JEHANNUM for themselves which Allah(swt) promised for those who intefere with the Holy Qur'ans TRUTH. As Allah(swt) has stated point blank, the Holy Qur'an is a Book of Truth, to try and tell LIES about it in any way, shape, or form, is to try and create doubts about it. And with these STORIES of the Uthmanic Recencsion of the Holy Qur'an, the orthodox "Muslim" uleyma[scholarship] have committed KUFR & SHIRK...

---------------------------------------

P.S. - This post of mine on ShiaChat, which I initially posted several hours ago, coincidentally, was my post # 786 [the numerological code for the Bismillah formula] and reply # 114 [the same number as the Holy Qur'anic surahs]; but thanks to ShiaChat's policy of locking out the post within the hour so it cannot be edited, I was forced to delete and re-edit some points I forgot to make. There was a time on ShiaChat, when one could revisit a post from a couple of years ago and do some edits...But that has been changed for some time now.

---------------------------------------

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe we have different priorities. Yours are to prove that in fact there is the classic (Sunni) story of Quran codifications were false. Mine are the absence of diacritical & vowel marks in the early codices when in fact they are very important (I have several others, but let's focus on this 1 first).

Back to the topic:

You must remember that Islam is for all human, not Arabic speaker only. So, diacritical & vowel marks are very important to ensure that everyone read the Quran in the same way. Even the the presence of Arabic speakers can't avoid the emergence of the different readings. I think you are familiar with these different readings: "maaliki" vs "maliki" reading in Al-Fatihah: 4 & "arjulakum" vs "arjulikum" reading in Al-Maidah:6, "ilyasin" vs "ali yasin" in Ash-Shaffat: 130, etc.

The only thing that can prevent this is the diacritical & vowel marks. But, even in the Mushaf attributed to the Imams, they are not present. This is what bugging me. What were the possible reasons on why they didn't take this necessary preventive measure?

Salam.

Our priorities are in fact interconnected...Your concern for the absence of diacritics in all the early Quran-ul-Karims[including the ones handwritten by the Ahlul Bayt Aimma/Hashimite Sayeds] and mine regarding the historicity of the Quran-ul-Karim...

And as for the absence of diacritics in the Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the Ahlul Bayt Aimma/Hashimite Sayeds could be explained by John Gilchrist's concerns & criticisms :

Siddique states this argument in the following way: "'Usman was not standardising one out of several texts. There never was more than one text. 'Usman was standardizing the recitation of the Qur'an and making sure that it would remain in the dialect of the Quraish in which it was originally revealed. He was concerned at points of difference in intonation between Iraqi and Syrian troops in the Islamic army" (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.2). The claim is that, if there were any differences in reading, they were only in pronunciation, in "the recitation" and "intonation" of the text. This argument is based entirely on faulty premises. Pronunciation, recitation and intonation relate only to a verbal recital of the text and such differences would never have appeared in the written texts. Yet it was the destruction of these written texts that Uthman ordered.

We need to consider further that, in the earliest days of the codification of the Qur'an in writing, there were no vowel points in the texts. Thus differences in recitation would never have appeared in the written codices. Why, then, did Uthman burn them? There can only be one conclusion the differences must have existed in the texts themselves and, in the following three chapters, we shall see just how extensive those differences were. Uthman was standardising one text at the expense of the others and it was not little niceties in the finer points of recitation that occasioned his extreme action against the other codices but the prevalence of a vast number of variant readings in the text itself.

Muslims need to consider and ponder Uthman's action seriously. The Qur'an was believed to be the revealed Word of God and the codices then in existence were written out by the very closest companions of Muhammad himself. What value would be placed on those Qur'an manuscripts if they were still in existence today? These were hand-written codices carefully copied out, some as complete records of the whole Qur'an text, by the most prominent of Muhammad's companions who were regarded as authorities on the text. It was these codices that Uthman eliminated. Uthman burnt and destroyed complete manuscripts of the whole Qur'an copied out by Muhammad's immediate companions.

If there had not been serious differences between them, why would he thus have destroyed such cherished copies of what all Muslims believe to be the revealed Word of God? One cannot understand the casualness with which modern Muslim writers justify his action especially if, as Siddique claims, there had never been any differences in the texts. What would Muslims think if anyone had a ceremony today such as Uthman had then, and consigned a number of Qur'ans to the flames, especially if these were cherished hand-written texts of great antiquity? Uthman burnt such Qur'an texts and destroyed them. Only one explanation can account for this - there must have been so many serious variant readings between the texts themselves that the Caliph saw only one solution - the establishment of one of these as the official text for the whole Muslim community and the elimination of the others.

While Siddique emphatically declares "One Text, No Variants" and states that "there was never more than one text" (this clause is in bold letters in his article), Desai contradicts him by admitting that there were differences in the earliest texts, such differences including "textual variation" (op.cit., p.22), and by acknowledging that other codices were not necessarily identical to the one compiled by Zaid (p.23). Desai, however, also seeks to maintain the hypothesis that the Qur'an is word-perfect to this day, so he argues that all the variants that existed were part of the divinely authorised seven different readings of the Qur'an and states that, as these readings were not known to all the Muslims, Uthman wisely decided to destroy the evidences in the interests of obtaining a single text.

--------------------------------------------------------

The Islamic Awareness team that always responds to the Answering Islam team, in my analysis, did not give a convincing or sufficient rebuttal to John Gilchrist's Jam' Al-Qur'an - The Codification of the Qur'an Text ...From which I copy-pasted the above critique.

What is clearly evident, is that it basically boils[no pun intended toward Uthman's method of recension] down to the bare facts that a fraud and lie has been perpetrated by the orthodox "Muslim" uleyma[scholarship]...This fraud was to serve as an explanation as to why ARCHAEOLOGICALLY, NO QURANS have ever been found from the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah, Yazid, Marwan, and Abdul Malik...

I am not even going to elaborate about the PATHETIC attempt by the orthodox "Muslim" scholars that FALSELY attributed no less than NINE Quranic manuscripts to Uthman ibn al-Affan...ALL of which were written in KUFIC script which was barely completed in development when Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. and which was INTRODUCED in the Arabian Peninsula by Caliph Ali Ibn Abu Talib circa 656-658 A.D.

No Qurans have EVER been found handwritten by the "Abdullah" ibn Masuds; Ubay bin Kabs; Muadh ibn Jabals; Abu Musa Asharis; and last but not least the Zayd bin Thabit al-Ansaris...

WHERE ARE THEIR QURANS ?

Since they don't EXIST or POSSIBLY NEVER DID, the orthodox "Muslim" uleyma[scholarship] INVENT THIS MYTH about the UTHMANIC RECENSION of the Qurans as the explanation why none of those early Quranic copies were ever found and why they do not exist to this day...

They must then somehow give everybody credit who most probably had nothing at all to do with the preservation of the Quran-ul-Karim such as the : Abu Bakrs; Umars; Hafsas; Ibn Masuds; Bin Kabs; Ibn Jabals; Bin Thabits; and last but not least, the Uthmans...

The elaborate and complicated MYTH about the Uthmanic Recension of the Holy Quran was that INVENTION...

However, these very same orthodox "Muslim" uleyma[scholarship] PRACTICALLY FORGOT or NEGLECTED the AUTHENTIC HANDWRITTEN Quran-ul-Karims of the Hashimite Sayeds[Chieftains]/Ahlul Bayt Aimma[Leaders from the People of the House]...The VERY PEOPLE that ACTUALLY PRESERVED THE HOLY QUR'AN in both oral and written form...

The Astan-E-Qods Museums[Markazi/Malek Abad/Ganjineh-ye-Qoran] with their 12,000+ handwritten manuscripts of the Holy Qur'an was not brought into the equation by the orthodox "Muslim" uleyma[scholarship], simply because they are a clear threat to the fraudulent, fabricated ahadith being perpetrated regarding the supposed "standardization" of the Holy Qur'an by Uthman ibn al-Affan...

The surviving, existing handwritten authentic Holy Qur'ans at the Astaneh Qods Museums in Mashhad, Iran, which include the calligraphed copies by the Hashimite Sayeds[From Caliph Ali to Imam Ali ar-Raza] are indisputable PROOF AS TO THE HOLY QURAN'S UNCHANGED TEXTS FROM THE TIME THEY WERE FIRST WRITTEN DOWN BY CALIPH ALI IBN ABU TALIB IN KUFI SCRIPT CIRCA 656-660 A.D. ...AND NOT EARLIER.

When Prophet Muhammad stated that "the Ahlul Bayt are with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with the Ahlul Bayt", this can now be properly linked to its most basic context.

Also, if the orthodox "Muslim" uleyma[scholarship] try and include Aisha bint Abu Bakr and Hafsa bint Umar as members of the Ahlul Bayt, than they must first REVISIT the Quranic Surah of At-Tahrim[The Prohibition]...Aisha and Hafsa clearly appear to be EXCLUDED from being of the Ahlul Bayt of Muhammad due to them being COMPARED in Surah Tahrim, to the wives of Nabih Nuh[Noah] and Nabih Lut[Lot] that were condemned to Jehannum(Hell) by Almighty Allah(swt) Himself...

As it stands, for the ENTIRE Muslim Ummah to have the very foundation of our religion of Islam[i.e. The Holy Qur'an] VALIDATED for historicity, we have NO OPTION but to turn to the Ahlul Bayt Aimma/Hashimite Sayeds[From Caliph Ali to at least Imam Ali ar-Raza] and their handwritten Holy Qur'ans for CONFIRMATION...

Otherwise, if we go with ahadith about the Abu Bakrs; Umars; Aishas; Hafsas; Uthmans; etc., we leave ourselves wide open to being utterly discredited as a monotheist religion. Specifically with this issue of the "Uthmanic Recension"...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, Thanks for the answer. Do we have know from hadiths what the correct reading is from 7-10 different readings?

Salam.

I hope my past few responses clarified some things. So, as you have indicated, diacritical marks did not really change anything in regards to the reading of the Holy Qur'an...You have stated that according to ahadith, there are 7-10 readings still.

I must add that John Gilchrist's Jam' Al-Qur'an - The Codification of the Qur'an Text is a remarkable book. Unlike so many other Judeo-Christian scholars whose feelings of disagreement with the Islamic religion resonates in their literary works, Mr. Gilchrist has actually put together a professional, thought-provoking, objective, and even respectful work. Rather than adopting an accusatory, condescending tone, his scholarly method of analysis of some obviously highly sensitive issues for us Muslims is almost admirable.

Gilchrist's work has objectively approached a thorough analysis which is hardly found among our own scholars regading the issue of Quranic codification. However, Gilchrist has done NO analysis regarding the 12,000+ Quranic manuscripts of the Astaneh Qods Museums of Mashhad, Iran. If it is possible, it would do him an invaluable service to visit Mashhad, Iran as a scholar.

Gilchrist makes only the most cursory mention of the Qurans of Caliph Ali and the "grandsons" of Nabih Muhammad toward the end of his book.

In an amendment to an error made by me in one my earlier postings, the Ma'il [sloping/Slanting] and Mashq [Extended/Elongated] Arabic scripts actually received their nomenclature DURING THE CALIPHATE OF CALIPH ALI...And NOT during that of Muawiyah I.

Also, in light of some further research on this subject and an amendment of one of my own earlier postings regarding the Kufic Arabic script, there is very strong evidence that the Kufic Arabic script was actually devised from the Sassanid Pahlavi script by Abu Dawud Al-Asadi Al-Kufi from explicit instructions by Caliph Ali Ibn Abu Talib himself circa 656-657 A.D.

A top priority for Caliph Ali was to codify the Holy Qur'an from OT[Oral Tradition] to WT[Written Tradition]. After moving the Islamic capital from Madinah, Arabia to Kufa, Iraq, he commissioned Abu Dawud Al-Asadi Al-Kufi to devise an Arabic script exclusively for the codification of the Holy Qur'an. The Kufi Arabic script was that text. Abu Dawud Al-Asadi Al-Kufi devised it in Kufa from the Sassanid Persian Pahlavi Script. However, Abu Dawud was careful not to do a more precise derivative in vocalization and phonetic sound per Caliph Ali's instruction. This was done so it would be socially acceptable in the Arabian Peninsula and not seen as an obvious imitation of the Sassanid Pahlavi script. Caliph Ali was well aware of the resentment against past Sassanid Persian occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.

During Hazrat Ali's caliphate, the Kufic Arabic script was exclusively for Quranic manuscripts, which included his own handwritten Qurans. Two of Caliph Ali's calligraphed Qurans survive to this very day.

Abu Dawud Al-Asadi was actually of the Banu Asad clan of the Quraysh of Mecca. But because he was among the wave of neo-Kufans or Hejazi-Yemeni settlers that "Arabized" Sassanid Suristan City into "Kufa", he was dubbed Al-Kufi[The Kufan]. Abu Dawud's great-grandson Hafs bin Sulayman ibn al-Mughirah(709-796 A.D.) was commissioned by the 2nd Abbasid Caliph Abu Jafar Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Mansur(712-775 A.D.) to devise diacritical marks for Quranic texts. Hafs b. Sulayman accomplished this early on during the caliphate of Al-Mansur(754-775 A.D.).

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, not really answering my concerns. You see, without the dot & vowel marks, there are a lot of ways to read the Quran. Of course, not all of them are true. Most likely, there is only 1 true way of reading the Quran.

But, so far in my research, the ma'sumin never told us what the correct reading is even though they have a lot of time to tell us (e.g. when Imam Ali rose to caliphate, etc).

So, it kinds of make us left in the dark.

I have found a (Sunni) source for the complete list of the different readings of the Quran: http://audio.islamweb.net/audio/index.php?page=rewayat

7 reciters which each has 2 narrators makes up 14 different readings of Quran (note that it's not all the variant readings, it's the ones that Sunni considered mutawatir)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, not really answering my concerns. You see, without the dot & vowel marks, there are a lot of ways to read the Quran. Of course, not all of them are true. Most likely, there is only 1 true way of reading the Quran.

But, so far in my research, the ma'sumin never told us what the correct reading is even though they have a lot of time to tell us (e.g. when Imam Ali rose to caliphate, etc).

So, it kinds of make us left in the dark.

Salam.

The Hashimite Sayeds most certainly conveyed the correct reading of the Holy Quran during their lifetimes. Of all the varied readings today, logically at least one of them has to be theirs...

You should contemplate on the fact that the Quran-ul-Karim is ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS...

Its readers and reciters will receive what they need to know from it...

It it is the intent[niyat] of some to pervert its meanings, then they will be "led astray by it", as Allah(swt) Himself states in the Holy Qur'an...

In recent history, it has been recognized that the Hashimite Sharifs of Mecca, Husain bin Ali[father of Prince Faisal bin Husain], had the authentic reading.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's true, then there would be no confusion among us now about what is the correct reading because we would have strong riwayat or proof to back it up.

But, sadly, this is not the case. You could try to see in the Sunni-Shia forum, if I'm not mistaken the title of the thread is Compilation of the Quran (it was on Sep-2009). The Sunni there asked the Shias what is the correct reading according to the ma'sumin & what is the proof, but sadly no Shia could answer this. In fact, there's a hadith mentioned there about Imam Ja'far read the Quran by using the reading not known by his companion.

You could see know, this is troubling. How could the ma'sumin do not leave us a very important information such as this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's true, then there would be no confusion among us now about what is the correct reading because we would have strong riwayat or proof to back it up.

But, sadly, this is not the case. You could try to see in the Sunni-Shia forum, if I'm not mistaken the title of the thread is Compilation of the Quran (it was on Sep-2009). The Sunni there asked the Shias what is the correct reading according to the ma'sumin & what is the proof, but sadly no Shia could answer this. In fact, there's a hadith mentioned there about Imam Ja'far read the Quran by using the reading not known by his companion.

You could see know, this is troubling. How could the ma'sumin do not leave us a very important information such as this one?

Salam.

What kind of NAIVE boy are you ?

When the great PROPHETS of Allah (swt) brought the Word of Allah--teaching as many as they could the correct reading and definitions--have had their teachings DISTORTED, what makes you think the CORRECT reading of the Holy Quran could remain unified...Again, the emphasis is on the READING, NOT THE ACTUAL QURAN ITSELF, which obviously cannot be imitated or altered in any way, shape, or form...Generally speaking, the whole Muslim world doesn't seem to have problems with the FUNDAMENTAL readings of the Quran, but YOU DO...

And as for why no "shias" on ShiaChat's Shia-Sunni forum had any possible answer to the 'Aimma's readings...'

They asked people on chatlines...What they should have done is asked the top clerics of the Republic of Iran. The question should have been posed to Ali Sistani and his organization in a formal letter. Why don't you try it yourself...The Iranian clerics do uphold that their readings of the Holy Qur'an are directly linked to the Dawa[missionary] of 8th Hashimite Sayed Ali ar-Raza.

But I think since you come across as a little boy with your endless queries on the correct readings of the Quran-ul-Karim...You might try Mehyar Hussein Boor...

Now here's a little boy who has no doubts as to the correct reading of the Holy Qur'an...From an article excerpt :

Mehyar Hussein Boor from Iran not only has the entire Holy Quran etched in his mind, but he will also tell you there are 77,807 letters in the Holy Book.

The 10-year-old boy is a miracle of Almighty Allah according to participants at the Dubai International Holy Quran Award started in Dubai on Wednesday. Mehyar is probably the youngest ever to have memorized the entire Quran. The boy, who otherwise cannot read, write or speak Arabic, learnt the holy book when he was six years old in only six months.

Though he cannot communicate or write in Arabic, when it comes to the Holy Quran, Mehyar reads, recites and writes the verses with total fluency. This again is a sheer miracle of Almighty Allah.

His father, a tailor, just has to mention the number of a page, and Mehyar will tell you the first and last verses. He then proceeds to recite the page.

The boy goes a step further. He will tell you whether the page is to the right or left, the Surat, the Hizb, the Chapter and the number of verses on that particular page. When it comes to statistics, Mehyar has them on his fingertips. He says Allah's name figures 2,607 times, there are 33,671 words in the Holy Book, there are 1,000,530 full stops, 6,336 verses and the word 'Quran' appears70 times. He can also recite the Holy Quran in reverse order.

Allah's reassuring hands touched Mehyar soon after the family met a horrific car accident in Iran when he was just five years old. Mehyar lost the power of speech. Doctors said time would heal his voice. But it seemed the Almighty had other plans.

One day, Mehyar on a whim started to recite the Holy Quran in his hoarse voice.And, as time passed, his voice got stronger and stronger. By the time Mehyar had learnt the entire Quran, his voice was back to normal.

Today, the boy can recite the holy book with complete ease - his voice not faltering for even a second. But when he switches to Persian, his mother tongue,the scars of the fateful day surface. His voice becomes hoarse.

Mehyar, who was born in Iran in 1992, won scores of awards in international competitions in Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Russia and Syria. His parents, who did not memorize the Holy Quran, did not give him any exceptional help in the mission.

He would spend 150 minutes a day for six months to learn the entire Quran, which has more than 600 pages. He has a 13-year-old brother who studies in the 7th standard and his mother is a housewife.

He learnt books of the grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in almost one month.

This boy himself might help you with your perplexing questions about the 'correct reading...'

Contact him...I think Almighty Allah(swt) has probably blessed this boy with the 'correct reading' of the Holy Qur'an...IF you are a believer in Quranic miracles, then Mehyar is your answer.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again, I ask for a single proof of what the reading of the ma'sumin is & the mocking returns? Can we discuss properly with good akhlaq? Have I ever mocked you during our discussion?

Let's go step by step. Please answer this question straight forwardly:

"In the Quran, God promises to protect the Quran. Do you think the promise only on the skeletal writing of the Quran OR how the Quran actually read by the Prophet?"

N.B. Yes, the boy in the article is amazing, but what's the relation of the article vs the various reading of the Quran? FYI, the number of full stops & verses can differ from 1 reading to another. Just try to open the link that I gave you & download the various reading of the Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again, I ask for a single proof of what the reading of the ma'sumin is & the mocking returns? Can we discuss properly with good akhlaq? Have I ever mocked you during our discussion?

Salam.

First of all, this discussion was about the Tabernacle being allegedly greater then the Kaaba...

I arrived at the fact that the Muslim Holy Book--The Quran--is in itself OLDER than the Judaic Tanakh [Old Testament]...And the technicalities that accompanied it...Just in case questions arose as to the historicity of the Qur'an itself...Because the core of the reverence for both the Tabernacle and the Kaaba lie in the respective holy books of the two comparative monotheist religions.

Now you come in with your oxymoronic, quasi-cathartic queries about the CORRECT READING of the Holy Quran...Isn't it enough for you that the Holy Quran has been PRESERVED IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT ?

This is what I meant when I stated that after virtually proving that the Tabernacle is really NOT greater than the Kaaba for our Christian and Jewish brothers...And WHY...I then have to contend with a "Muslim" boy whose ShiaChat avatar mascot is Ratatouille...And can't get it into his thick head that diacritical marks WERE NOT DEVISED until the lifetime of the 7th Hashimite Sayed...

Why don't you start another topic on this subject ALONE...

Personally, if you and I were to have had this discussion face-to-face...At some eventual point along the line, I probably would have little option but to break your jaw with a very hard right[an uppercut, hook, or cross would depend upon my reading of the angle of your jaw], due to the level of condensed obstinacy & lack of understanding someone like you is pretending to have...It really defies verbal intellectual debate of any kind...

From a juvenile's perspective, if it is a test to see how a juvenile can get on an adult's nerves, than I must congratulate you in that you are fully accomplished in that respect...

P.S. - Allah (swt) guaranteed the preservation of the Holy Qur'an; that guarantee has been met; Allah (swt) also addresses that the essence of reading or reciting the Holy Qur'an are for MEN OF UNDERSTANDING...Not boys that are trying their level best at a lack of understanding.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I'm sorry to get off course because of my (previous) interest to discuss with you. Then of course, continue your monologue here. I won't bother you anymore. This will be my last post.

But, for your thinking, proving the Quran is preserved in skeletal writing as you are trying to do here is not enough. The very point of preserving Quran is "preserving how Quran was read by the Prophet", because the skeletal writing of Quran can be read by numerous ways which can alter the meaning of the words itself (e.g. "malik" vs maalik" "arjulikum" vs arjulakum" "ali yasin" vs "ilyasin", etc which differs in meaning). So, it's not preservation if you don't know whether "arjulikum" or "arjulakum" are the correct reading of the Prophet & Imams.

If we put it step by step (to get you to understand the importance of preserving the Prophet's reading):

- In the Quran, God promises to preserve the Quran. Do you think the promise only on the skeletal writing of the Quran OR how the Quran actually read by the Prophet?

- If you say "how the Quran actually read by the Prophet", could you show me what the reading of the Prophet & Imams is? Is it one of the various reading? If yes, which 1 of them? Do you have any proof of the Prophet & Imams informing the correct reading of the Quran?

- If you say "how the Quran in skeletal writing", then read my previous paragraph. In short, Quran is for reading. By reading we will know the meaning & to apply it. If I present you the preserved skeletal writing, how will you read the Quran?

Alternatively, you can say, just as some ulama says that every reading is correct. Then, it will also be fine IF there is a proof that the ma'sumin said this (which until now, unfortunately, I haven't found such statement), though it will raise some questions whether there are any other methods of reading which the ma'sumin approved because of the hadith stating Imam Ja'far read the Quran in unknown recitation to his companion. So, then again, it goes back to the "whether the Prophet & Imam ever informed us what the correct reading/s is/are?"

In the last line you say that "Allah (swt) also addresses that the essence of reading or reciting the Holy Qur'an are for MEN OF UNDERSTANDING..." then can you show me what & how is the reading/reciting of Men of Understanding? If you can state something, you should be able to present the proof. Then, what is it? Let me say you that even the Islamic scholars are not unanimous in stating the correct reading, e.g. Ayatullah Khomeini prefers the reading "malik" in Al-Fatihah: 4, but other ulama prefers the common reading of "maalik".

Like I said, this is my last post here. So, you can just ignore this post if you want. But, if you want to complete your theory of Quran preservation, it's not complete without proving the preservation of the Prophet's reading. It's just as simple as that.

P.S.

- For your own sake, I believe the Muslim akhlaq forbids us to judge people if you don't know anything about them. If you met me, you'll know I'm not a boy at all (though if I really am, it will also have nothing to do with this discussion). I choose the logo for a reason I think I don't have to explain here (it'll be making the topic more off-course).

- Actually, solving an argument with mocking & violence really shows your level of maturity & akhlaq.

Edited by rzairul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I'm sorry to get off course because of my (previous) interest to discuss with you. Then of course, continue your monologue here. I won't bother you anymore. This will be my last post.

But, for your thinking, proving the Quran is preserved in skeletal writing as you are trying to do here is not enough. The very point of preserving Quran is "preserving how Quran was read by the Prophet", because the skeletal writing of Quran can be read by numerous ways which can alter the meaning of the words itself (e.g. "malik" vs maalik" "arjulikum" vs arjulakum" "ali yasin" vs "ilyasin", etc which differs in meaning). So, it's not preservation if you don't know whether "arjulikum" or "arjulakum" are the correct reading of the Prophet & Imams.

If we put it step by step (to get you to understand the importance of preserving the Prophet's reading):

- In the Quran, God promises to preserve the Quran. Do you think the promise only on the skeletal writing of the Quran OR how the Quran actually read by the Prophet?

- If you say "how the Quran actually read by the Prophet", could you show me what the reading of the Prophet & Imams is? Is it one of the various reading? If yes, which 1 of them? Do you have any proof of the Prophet & Imams informing the correct reading of the Quran?

- If you say "how the Quran in skeletal writing", then read my previous paragraph. In short, Quran is for reading. By reading we will know the meaning & to apply it. If I present you the preserved skeletal writing, how will you read the Quran?

Alternatively, you can say, just as some ulama says that every reading is correct. Then, it will also be fine IF there is a proof that the ma'sumin said this (which until now, unfortunately, I haven't found such statement), though it will raise some questions whether there are any other methods of reading which the ma'sumin approved because of the hadith stating Imam Ja'far read the Quran in unknown recitation to his companion. So, then again, it goes back to the "whether the Prophet & Imam ever informed us what the correct reading/s is/are?"

In the last line you say that "Allah (swt) also addresses that the essence of reading or reciting the Holy Qur'an are for MEN OF UNDERSTANDING..." then can you show me what & how is the reading/reciting of Men of Understanding? If you can state something, you should be able to present the proof. Then, what is it? Let me say you that even the Islamic scholars are not unanimous in stating the correct reading, e.g. Ayatullah Khomeini prefers the reading "malik" in Al-Fatihah: 4, but other ulama prefers the common reading of "maalik".

Like I said, this is my last post here. So, you can just ignore this post if you want. But, if you want to complete your theory of Quran preservation, it's not complete without proving the preservation of the Prophet's reading. It's just as simple as that.

P.S.

- For your own sake, I believe the Muslim akhlaq forbids us to judge people if you don't know anything about them. If you met me, you'll know I'm not a boy at all (though if I really am, it will also have nothing to do with this discussion). I choose the logo for a reason I think I don't have to explain here (it'll be making the topic more off-course).

- Actually, solving an argument with mocking & violence really shows your level of maturity & akhlaq.

Salam.

The correct reading of the Holy Quran would have been better off without diacritical marks for a number of reasons of which I have already posted earlier...One of them being the hypothetical Uthmanic Recension issue...

The correct reading would probably come down to oral recitation. Along with the physical representation of the Quran in written form...Both go hand-in-hand.

What would you prefer ? No handwritten Holy Quran at all...?

Or one without diacritics ?

You are not taking into account ACCENTS...No diacritical marks can rectify ACCENTS. Even in the Arabic language's current three dialects of Galbi, Musri, and Maghribi, there is the issue of different ACCENTS.

Even though medieval Hejazi Arabians from both Yahtrib[Madinah/Taybah] and Mecca[Becca] spoke in the Hejazi dialect, their accents could have been different.

If one were to go to America and hear a Bostonian or New Yorker speak, they are speaking the very same language with the same slang but their ENUNCIATION and ACCENTS are quite different and very distinct. Americans of the Southern states have a distinct DRAWL to their English. All these various peoples of America can literally recite the very same speech, with the very same wordings and punctuations, but their ACCENT and ENUNCIATION would be different.

How would Arabic language diacritics from the Aimma solve or resolve the problem of the fact that the letter Pe or P is NOT in Arabic but exists in Farsi and its partial derivative Urdu; or that Egyptian Arabic has NO Jeem or J but substitute it with the hard G sound...? Or that Egyptians had the letter Pe or P in their native language of Hieratic which ended up being converted to Ba or B and/or Fe or F in their adoption of the Arabic language? For instance, the Arabic Firawn[Pharaoh] is Pero'aa[Pharaoh] with a the true Pe or P sound in Hieratic...Many Coptic[Qibti] Egyptians tend to pronounce it Boraa'a with a Ba or B even...

NO AMOUNT of punctuations or diacritics would be able to capture the varied ACCENTS of the English and/or Arabic languages[which I used above as an example].

This, of course, applies to ACCENTS and ENUNCIATIONS of ALL languages worldwide...

How in the world would you expect the Holy Quran to be recited in the Meccan Qurayshi ACCENT of Nabih Muhammad(pbuh) of the 7th Century A.D. EXACTLY as the Holy Prophet himself ?

Then you must take into account what type of ACCENT did an archangel have in Malak al-Jibril who revealed it to Nabih Muhammad(s.a.w.) ?

Then you must also question if Malak al-Jibril properly understood Almighty Allah's version of the Hejazi/Qurayshi/Meccan Arabic...

Again, if you are in fact a Shi'ite, then why don't you direct the question to the Aimma themselves ?

Since it is them you are really questioning...

Also, when I paraphrased Almighty Allah's Quranic statement that it is for the MEN OF UNDERSTANDING to take heed of its message, I hope you understood that it is not my saying...

It is Almighy Allah's verse from the Holy Quran...

How could I back up and bring proof of the understanding of the MEN OF UNDERSTANDING to someone who seems to have little or none...

It is after all, Almighty Allah's statement...And your questioning it is directed toward Allah Himself. All I did was quote it.

P.S. - The breaking-of-the-jaw was a metaphor...not to be taken literally. I thought that would have been understood by monsieur Ratatouille; you take yourself a little too seriously...You see the jaw supports the mouth and all its functions : eating, to digest nutrition and nourishment; speech, to communicate; etc., but since yours do not seem to assist you in your scholastic-theological quest, the metaphoric solution would be to "break" it...Hypothetically, if you were to drink out of a straw for maybe a month while your "jaw" healed, you might re-evaluate your approach and priorities in the preservation of the Holy Qur'an...Metaphorically, after your "broken jaw" healed, you would be grateful to be able to recite the Holy Quran in any reading...Because you would be grateful for the ability to even recite the Holy Quran period...The miniscule variations in enunciation and accents of the Quranic readings would not be such an obssessive-compulsive desire for you...In the end result, your intent[niyat] and sincerity[ikhlas] in reading the Holy Quran period, would be appreciated by Allah(swt) above all else...The possible fact that you even tried to understand it...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I'm sorry to get off course because of my (previous) interest to discuss with you. Then of course, continue your monologue here. I won't bother you anymore. This will be my last post.

But, for your thinking, proving the Quran is preserved in skeletal writing as you are trying to do here is not enough. The very point of preserving Quran is "preserving how Quran was read by the Prophet", because the skeletal writing of Quran can be read by numerous ways which can alter the meaning of the words itself (e.g. "malik" vs maalik" "arjulikum" vs arjulakum" "ali yasin" vs "ilyasin", etc which differs in meaning). So, it's not preservation if you don't know whether "arjulikum" or "arjulakum" are the correct reading of the Prophet & Imams.

If we put it step by step (to get you to understand the importance of preserving the Prophet's reading):

- In the Quran, God promises to preserve the Quran. Do you think the promise only on the skeletal writing of the Quran OR how the Quran actually read by the Prophet?

- If you say "how the Quran actually read by the Prophet", could you show me what the reading of the Prophet & Imams is? Is it one of the various reading? If yes, which 1 of them? Do you have any proof of the Prophet & Imams informing the correct reading of the Quran?

- If you say "how the Quran in skeletal writing", then read my previous paragraph. In short, Quran is for reading. By reading we will know the meaning & to apply it. If I present you the preserved skeletal writing, how will you read the Quran?

Alternatively, you can say, just as some ulama says that every reading is correct. Then, it will also be fine IF there is a proof that the ma'sumin said this (which until now, unfortunately, I haven't found such statement), though it will raise some questions whether there are any other methods of reading which the ma'sumin approved because of the hadith stating Imam Ja'far read the Quran in unknown recitation to his companion. So, then again, it goes back to the "whether the Prophet & Imam ever informed us what the correct reading/s is/are?"

In the last line you say that "Allah (swt) also addresses that the essence of reading or reciting the Holy Qur'an are for MEN OF UNDERSTANDING..." then can you show me what & how is the reading/reciting of Men of Understanding? If you can state something, you should be able to present the proof. Then, what is it? Let me say you that even the Islamic scholars are not unanimous in stating the correct reading, e.g. Ayatullah Khomeini prefers the reading "malik" in Al-Fatihah: 4, but other ulama prefers the common reading of "maalik".

Like I said, this is my last post here. So, you can just ignore this post if you want. But, if you want to complete your theory of Quran preservation, it's not complete without proving the preservation of the Prophet's reading. It's just as simple as that.

P.S.

- For your own sake, I believe the Muslim akhlaq forbids us to judge people if you don't know anything about them. If you met me, you'll know I'm not a boy at all (though if I really am, it will also have nothing to do with this discussion). I choose the logo for a reason I think I don't have to explain here (it'll be making the topic more off-course).

- Actually, solving an argument with mocking & violence really shows your level of maturity & akhlaq.

Salam.

To append to my previous reply, I forgot to elaborate the following :

The Holy Prophet's precise reading and its preservation by the Hashimite Sayeds, if diacritics were to have been used by the Aimma, it would not be able to overcome the pronunciations of the following Arabic letters :

Thuaad/Th = the "TH" sound as in the English words think; thought; thorough; which, however, is most often converted to the true "S" sound in adaptions by Turkish/Farsi/Pashtu/Urdu/Turkic/etc. speaking peoples.

Dhuaad/Dh or Th = the "TH" sound as in the English words this; that; them; which, also however, is most often converted to either the "Z" sound by non-Arab peoples and the "D" sound by fellow Arabs themselves; especially, the bedouins.

Now, in the Arabic language, these differences in alphabetical pronunciations can produce different meanings of Arabic words...

However, these subtleties in pronunciation by non-Arabic speakers could NEVER be assisted via diacritical marks...Simply because diacritics would be unable to convey or express these phonetic sounds and vocalizations.

The bottom line is that with all the various limitations of pronunciations of certain phonetic sounds and vocalizations of the alphabets, the exact reading of the Holy Quran by the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his biological descendants in the Hashimite Sayeds/Aimma, would be impossible to quality control on a global, multi-cultural scale.

But in the end, it would be understood that Almighty Allah(swt) would OVERLOOK these explicit details in favour of the niyat[intention] and ikhlas[sincerity] of the reciters of the Holy Qur'an...No matter what geographic location these reciters were from as they are all of a single Ummah[Community] as Allah(swt) states in the Holy Qur'an...

Allah(swt) would also take into consideration any and all human beings with SPEECH IMPEDIMENTS who, due to physical disability of facial muscles or physical debilitation of their actual tongue itself, would be unable to CORRECTLY READ the Holy Qur'an; this also includes people who would find the Arabic language rather difficult to vocalize AND in addition, have speech impediments...

This is the last reply I am going to give you, as well...If you have understood nothing from this, then you really shouldn't be reading the Holy Qur'an but should just be listening to it...

P.S. -

A few things I wanted to review with you...

You entered this discussion presenting yourself as someone who wanted to know why no diacritics were included in the landmark handwritten Holy Qur'ans of the Aimma/Hashimite Sayeds...

That was explained to you in that diacritics weren't devised until after the 6th Imam had already written his copy of the Qur'an...

Then you changed your discussion to questioning the "theory" of whether the Holy Qur'an was considered complete without the EXACT recital of Prophet Muhammad himself...

This is subtle deception on your part...And not part of "Muslim" akhlaq[etiquette/manners] as you like to put it...

First of all you entered this discussion and took it OFF TOPIC...Then you present your TRUE motives for logging onto it...

What I maintained in this discussion of why the Tabernacle was NOT greater than the Kaaba, was a very wide array of RELATED topical facts so as to support my presentation...Which I did my best to keep thorough with no loose ends or no stone left unturned...

You also questioned me why I might think you are not Shia...I still think you're no real Shi'ite but maybe a closet Salafi or the misnomered "Wahhabi"[a term I personally don't like to use as Wahhab is one of Almighty Allah's names]...

A giveaway was when you described the Sunni traditions as "Classic"...No real Shi'ite considers Sunni traditions to be "classic"...Other giveaways were you bringing up the Abu Bakr-Umar-rejecting-Hazrat Ali's-Qur'an story...No real Shia would have ever brought that up as they scoff at it. Plus, Shia's wouldn't list their religion as private in their member profile...They openly advertise their Shia'ism.

What exactly was your purpose and motive to enter this particular discussion ? To truly receive an answer as to why diacritics weren't used by the Aimma[you stated that this kept bugging you...] ?

Or to challenge the preservation of the Holy Qur'an in written form by the Aimma...?

You speak of my level of maturity when your avatar mascot is Ratatouille...

Next time you enter a discussion, at least be HONEST about your motives...Don't enter it under false pretext just because you didn't like my DISMANTLING of the ahadith regarding the Uthmanic Recension MYTH in orthodox, standard Islamic history...

I only did it because it could easily have been brought up by anyone of our Jewish and Christian brothers to challenge the Holy Qur'an's historicity...The Uthmanic Recension ahadith clearly have more holes in them than Swiss cheese...

Like I uphold, your no real Shi'ite...Because I think that is what really bothered you...

I also noticed that your articulation kept improving during our exchanges...Were you receiving help from some of your "friends" within or outside of ShiaChat...? Your English grammar didn't seem as sharp as your later replies...

In summation, you represent that newer generation of pseudo-intellectual "Muslims" whose subtly deceptive tariqa[methods/ways] are really alarming...And not really part of the akhlaq[etiquette/manners] of genuine Islam...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam.

So far, the OLDEST WT[Written Tradition] of the Old Testament remains the SEPTUAGINT ["SEVENTY"] ...

This was BEFORE the compilation of the NICENE CREED of 325 A.D. at the imperial decree of the very 1st Christian Emperor of Rome, Constintine I (the Great). The NICENE CREED evolved into the Judeo-Christian scriptures called the BIBLE.

Following the NICENE CREED, came the very first Hebrew language version of the Old Testament called the TANAKH in 920 A.D. by the Massorah--Palestinian Jewish scholars of the Galilean coastal city of Tiberias [named after Roman Emperor Tiberius].

Chronological breakdown :

B.C.

285 - Alexandria, Egypt;

the SEPTUAGINT ["Seventy"] is compiled by Alexandrian "Jewish" scholars and Hellenic scholars of Egypt in Greek language; this is the earliest known written tradition of the Old Testament of Middle Eastern monotheism.

A.D.

325 - Nicaea(Ascania/Iznik), Anatolia(Turkey);

The NICENE CREED is compiled in Greek language at the decree of Constantine I (the Great)-1st Christian emperor of Rome; 1800 scholars participated from the Seven Ecumenical Churches of Christianity; the Nicene Creed includes both the Old & New Testament.

920 - Tiberias, Palestine(Israel);

The TANAKH [Old Testament] is compiled by the Massorah[Palestinian Jewish scholars] in Hebrew language.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an article regarding the Septuaginta from 1851 by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton :

English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible

The Translation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures, Including the Apocrypha.

An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version

Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851

The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era: this version has been so habitually known by the name of the SEPTUAGINT, that the attempt of some learned men in modern times to introduce the designation of the Alexandrian version (as more correct) has been far from successful.

The history of the origin of this translation was embellished with various fables at so early a period, that it has been a work of patient critical research in later times to bring into plain light the facts which may be regarded as well authenticated.

We need not wonder that but little is known with accuracy on this subject; for, with regard to the ancient versions of the Scriptures in general, we possess no information whatever as to the time or place of their execution, or by whom they were made: we simply find such versions in use at particular times, and thus we gather the fact that they must have been previously executed. If, then, our knowledge of the origin of the Septuagint be meagre, it is at least more extensive than that which we possess of other translations.

After the conquests of Alexander had brought Egypt under Macedonian rule, the newly-founded city of Alexandria became especially a place where the Greek language, although by no means in its purest form, was the medium of written and spoken communication amongst the varied population there brought together. This Alexandrian dialect is the idiom in which the Septuagint version was made.

Amongst other inhabitants of Alexandria the number of Jews was considerable: many appear to have settled there even from the first founding of the city, and it became the residence of many more during the reign of the first Ptolemy. Hence the existence of the sacred books of the Jews would easily become known to the Greek population.

The earliest writer who gives an account of the Septuagint version is Aristobulus, a Jew who lived at the commencement of the second century B.C. He says that the version of the Law into Greek was completed under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that Demetrius Phalereus had been employed about it. Now, Demetrius died about the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and hence it has been reasonably inferred that Aristobulus is a witness that the work of translation had been commenced under Ptolemy Soter.

Different opinions have been formed as to what is intended by Aristobulus when he speaks of the Law: some consider that he refers merely to the Pentateuch, while others extend the signification to the Old Testament Scriptures in general: the former opinion appears to be favoured by the strict meaning of the terms used; the latter by the mode in which the Jews often applied the name of Law to the whole of their sacred writings.

The fact may, however, be regarded as certain, that prior to the year 285 B.C. the Septuagint version had been commenced, and that in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, either the books in general or at least an important part of them had been completed.

The embellishments and fictitious additions which this account soon received might be scarcely worthy of notice in this place, were it not that they are intimately connected with the authority which this version was once supposed to possess, and with the name by which it is commonly known.

A writer, who calls himself Aristeas, says that when Ptolemy Philadelphus was engaged in the formation of the Alexandrian Library, he was advised by Demetrius Phalereus to procure a translation of the sacred books of the Jews. The king accordingly, as a preliminary, purchased the freedom of more than one hundred thousand Jewish captives, and he then sent a deputation, of which Aristeas himself was one, to Eleazar the high-priest to request a copy of the Jewish Law and seventy-two interpreters, six out of each tribe. To this the priest is represented to have agreed; and after the arrival of the translators and their magnificent reception by the king, they are said to have been conducted to an island by Demetrius, who wrote down the renderings on which they agreed by mutual conference; and thus the work is stated to have been completed in seventy-two days. The translators are then said to have received from the king most abundant rewards; and the Jews are stated to have asked permissions to take copies of the version.

Other additions were subsequently made to this story: some said that each translator was shut into a separate cell, and that all by divine inspiration made their versions word for word alike; others said that there were two in each cell, accompanied by an amanuensis; but at all events miracle and direct inspiration were supposed to be connected with the translation: hence we cannot wonder that the authority attached to this version in the minds of those who believed these stories was almost unbounded.

The basis of truth which appears to be under this story seems to be, that it was an Egyptian king who caused the translation to be made, and that it was from the Royal Library at Alexandria that the Hellenistic Jews received the copies which they used.

In examining the version itself, it bears manifest proof that it was not executed by Jews of Palestine, but by those of Egypt: -- there are words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin: this alone would be a sufficient demonstration that the narrative of Aristeas is a mere fiction. It may also be doubted whether in the year 285 B.C. there were Jews in Palestine who had sufficient intercourse with the Greeks to have executed a translation into that language; for it must be borne in mind how recently they had become the subjects of Greek monarchs, and how differently they were situated from the Alexandrians as to the influx of Greek settlers.

Some in rejecting the fabulous embellishments have also discarded all connected with them: they have then sought to devise new hypotheses as to the origin of the version. Some have thus supposed that the translation was made by Alexandrian Jews for their own use, in order to meet a neccesity which they felt to have a version of the Scriptures in the tongue which had become vernacular to them.

There would be, however, many difficulties in the way of this hypothesis. We would hardly suppose that in a space of thirty-five years the Alexandrian Jews had found such a translation needful or desirable: we must also bear in mind that we find at this period no trace of any versions having been made by Jews into the languages of other countries in which they had continued for periods much longer than that of their settlement at Alexandria.

The most reasonable conclusion is, that the version was executed for the Egyptian king; and that the Hellenistic Jews afterwards used it as they became less and less familiar with the language of the original.

If the expression of Aristobulus does not designate the whole of the books of the Old Testament as translated in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the question arises, When were the other books besides the Pentateuch turned into Greek? To this no definite answer could be given: we may however be certain that various interpreters were occupied in translating various parts, and in all probability the interval between the commencement and the conclusion of the work was not great.

The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.

In estimating the general character of the version, it must be remembered that the translators were Jews, full of traditional thoughts of their own as to the meaning of Scripture; and thus nothing short of a miracle could have prevented them from infusing into their version the thoughts which were current in their own minds. They could only translate passages as they themselves understood them. This is evidently the case when their work is examined.

It would be, however, too much to say that they translated with dishonest intention; for it cannot be doubted that they wished to express their Scriptures truly in Greek, and that their deviations from accuracy may be simply attributed to the incompetency of some of the interpreters, and the tone of mental and spiritual feeling which was common to them all.

One difficulty which they had to overcome was that of introducing theological ideas, which till then had only their proper terms in Hebrew, into a language of Gentiles, which till then had terms for no religious notions except those of heathens. Hence the necessity of using many words and phrases in new and appropriated senses.

These remarks are not intended as depreciatory of the Septuagint version: their object is rather to show what difficulties the translators had to encounter, and why in some respects they failed; as well as to meet the thought which has occupied the minds of some, who would extol this version as though it possessed something resembling co-ordinate authority with the Hebrew text itself.

One of the earliest of those writers who mention the Greek translation of the Scriptures, speaks also of the version as not fully adequate. The Prologue of Jesus the son of Sirach (written as many suppose B.C. 130) to his Greek version of his grandfather's work, states: ou gar isodunamei auta en eautoiV Ebraisti legomena kai otan metacqh eiV eteran glwssan ou monon de tauta alla kai autoV o nomoV kai ai profhteiai kai ta loipa twn bibliwn ou mikran ecei thn diaforan en eautoiV legomena : "For the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them." The writer of this Prologue had come into Egypt from the Holy Land: he had undertaken the translation of his grandfather's work into Greek, but in explanation of the difficulty which he had to encounter in this work, he refers to the defects found even in the version of the Law, the prophets, and the other books, of which he had previously spoken. Doubtless coming into Egypt he was more conscious of the defects of the Septuagint version than could have been the case with Egyptian Jews, who had used the translation commonly and habitually for a century and a quarter.

At Alexandria the Hellenistic Jews used the version, and gradually attached to it the greatest possible authority: from Alexandria it spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion, so that at the time of our Lord's birth it was the common form in which the Old Testament Scriptures had become diffused.

In examining the Pentateuch of the Septuagint in connection with the Hebrew text, and with the copies preserved by the Samaritans in their crooked letters, it is remarkable that in very many passages the reading of the Septuagint accord with the Samaritan copies where they differ from the Jewish. We cannot here notice the various theories which have been advanced to account for this accordance of the Septuagint with the Samaritan copies of the Hebrew; indeed it is not very satisfactory to enter into the details of the subject, because no theory hitherto brought forward explains all the facts, or meets all the difficulties. To one point, however, we will advert, because it has not been sufficiently taken into account, -- in the places in which the Samaritan and Jewish copies of the Hebrew text differ, in important and material points, the Septuagint accords much more with the Jewish than with the Samaritan copies, and in a good many points it introduces variations unknown to either.

The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.

In consequence of the fact that the New Testament writers used on many occasions the Septuagint version, some have deduced a new argument for its authority, -- a theory which we might have thought to be sufficiently disproved by the defects of the version , which evince that it is merely a human work. But the fact that the New Testament writers used this version on many occasions supplies a new proof in opposition to the idea of its authority, for in not a few places they do not follow it, but they supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, although contradicting the Septuagint.

The use, however, which the writers of the New Testament have made of the Septuagint version must always invest it with a peculiar interest; we thus see what honour God may be pleased to put on an honestly-made version, since we find that inspired writers often used such a version, when it was sufficiently near the original to suit the purpose for which it was cited, instead of rendering the Hebrew text de novo on every occasion.

Another important point on which the Septuagint stands in close connection with the New Testament is the general phraseology of the version, -- a phraseology in which the traces of Hebrew elements are most marked, but with regard to which we should mistake greatly if we supposed that it originated with the New Testament writers. Thus we may see that the study of the Septuagint is almost needful to any biblical scholars who wishes to estimate adequately the phraseology and usus loquendi of the New Testament.

Besides the direct citations in the New Testament in which the Septuagint is manifestly used, there are not a few passages in which it is clear that the train of expression has been formed on words and phrases of the Septuagint: thus an intimate acquaintance with this version becomes in a manner necessary on the part of an expositor who wishes to enter accurately into the scope of many parts of the New Testament.

Thus, whatever may be our estimate of the defects found in the Septuagint -- its inadequate renderings, its departures from the sense of the Hebrew, its doctrinal deficiencies owing to the limited apprehensions of the translators -- there is no reason whatever for our neglecting the version, or not being fully alive to its real value and importance.

After the diffusion of Christianity, copies of the Septuagint became widely dispersed amongst the new communities that were formed; so that before many years had elapsed this version must have been as much in the hands of Gentiles as of Jews.

The veneration with which the Jews had treated this version (as is shown in the case of Philo and Josephus), gave place to a very contrary feeling when they found how it could be used against them in argument: hence they decried the version, and sought to deprive it of all authority. As the Gentile Christians were generally unacquainted with Hebrew, they were unable to meet the Jews on the ground which they now took; and as the Gentile Christians at this time believed the most extraordinary legends of the origin of the version, so that they fully embraced the opinions of its authority and inspiration, they necessarily regarded the denial on the part of the Jews of its accuracy, as little less than blasphemy, and as a proof of their blindness.

In the course of the second century, three other complete versions of the Old Testament into Greek were executed: these are of importance in this place, because of the manner in which they were afterwards connected with the Septuagint.

The first of the Greek versions of the Old Testament executed in the second century was that of AQUILA. He is described as a Jew or Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and the date commonly attributed to his version is about the year A.D. 126. His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint: his version was in consequence upheld by the Jews. His labour was evidently directed in opposing the passages which the Christians were accustomed to cite from the Septuagint as applicable to the Lord Jesus. The general characteristic of this version is bold literality of rendering: such an endeavour is made to render each Hebrew word and particle into Greek, that all grammar is often set at defiance, and not unfrequently the sense is altogether sacrificed. From the scrupulosity of Aquila in rendering each Hebrew word, his work, if we possessed it complete (and not merely in scattered fragments), would be of great value in textual criticism.

Another Greek translator at a subsequent period in the second century was SYMMACHUS. He is described as an Ebionite, a kind of semi-Christian. His version seems to have been executed in good and pure Greek: perhaps he was the more particular in his attention to this in consequence of the mere barbarism of Aquila.

A third translator in the same century was THEODOTION, an Ebionite like Symmachus, to whom he was probably anterior. His version is in many parts based on the Septuagint. He is less servile in his adherence to the words of the Hebrew than Aquila, although he is void of the freedom of Symmachus. His knowledge of Hebrew was certainly but limited, and without the Septuagint it is hardly probable that he could have undertaken this version.

Thus, before the end of the second century there were, besides the Septuagint, three versions of the Old Testament in Greek, known to both Jews and Christians. All this could not fail in making the Old Testament Scriptures better known and more widely read.

Although many Christians believed in the inspiration and authority of the Septuagint, yet this could not have been universally the case; otherwise the disuse of the real Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, and the adoption of that of Theodotion in its stead, could never have taken place. This must have arisen from an apprehension of the poverty and inaccuracy of the Septuagint in this book, so that another version similar in its general style was gladly adopted.

We have now to speak of the labours of ORIGEN in connection with the text of the Septuagint. This learned and enterprising scholar, having acquired a knowledge of Hebrew, found that in many respects the copies of the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew text. It seems to be uncertain whether he regarded such differences as having arisen from mistakes on the part of the copyists, or from errors of the original translators themselves.

The object which he proposed to himself was not to restore the Septuagint to its original condition, nor yet to correct mere errors of translation simply as such, but to cause that the Church should possess a text of the Septuagint in which all additions to the Hebrew should be marked with an obelus, and in which all that the Septuagint omitted should be added from one of the other versions marked with an asterick. He also indicated readings in the Septuagint which were so incorrect that the passage ought to be changed for the corresponding one in another version.

With the object of thus amending the Septuagint, he formed his great works, the Hexapla and Tetrapla; these were (as the names imply) works in which the page was divided respectively into six columns and into four columns.

The Hexapla contained, 1st, the Hebrew text; 2nd, the Hebrew text expressed in Greek characters; 3rd, the version of Aquila; 4th, that of Symmachus; 5th, the Septuagint; 6th, Theodotion. The Tetrapla contained merely the four last columns.

Besides these four versions of the entire Old Testament, Origen employed three anonymous Greek versions of particular books; these are commonly called the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions. Hence in the parts in which two of these versions are added, the work was designated Octapla, and where all the three appeared, it was called Enneapla.

References were then made from the column of the Septuagint to other versions, so as to complete and correct it: for this purpose Theodotion was principally used. This recension by Origen has generally been called the Hexaplar text. The Hexapla itself is said never to have been copied: what remains of the versions which it contained (mere fragments) were edited by Montfaucon in 1714, and in an abridged edition by Bahrdt in 1769-70.

The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about half a century after Origen's death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, and hence the text of the Septuagint became almost hopelessly mixed up with that of other versions.

The Hexaplar text is best known from a Syriac version which was made from it; of this many books have been published from a MS. at Milan; other books are now in the British Museum amongst the rest of the Syriac treasures obtained from the Nitrian monasteries. This Syro-Hexaplar translation preserves the marks of the Greek text, and the references to the other translations. It may yet be made of great use in separating the readings which were introduced by Origen from those of an older date.

There were two other early attempts to revise the Septuagint besides that of Origen. In the beginning of the fourth century, Lucian, a presbyter on Antioch, and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook similar labours of the same kind. These two recensions (which they were in the proper sense of the term) were much used in the Eastern Churches.

From the fourth century and onward, we know of no definite attempt to revise the text of the Septuagint, or to correct the discrepancies of various copies. It is probable, however, that just as the text of the Greek New Testament became in a great measure fixed into the same form as we find it in the modern copies, something of the same kind must have been the case with the Septuagint. As to the Greek New Testament, this seems to have occured about the eleventh century, when the mass of copies were written within the limits of the patriarchate of Constantinople. It is probable that certain copies approved at the metropolis, both politically and religiously, of those who used the Greek tongue, were tacitly taken as a kind of standard.

We find amongst the members of the Eastern Churches who use the Greek language, that the Septuagint has been and is still so thoroughly received as authentic Scripture, that any effort to introduce amongst them versions which accurately represent the Hebrew (as has been attempted in modern times) has been wholly fruitless.

Thus the Septuagint demands our attention, were it only from the fact that the whole circle of religious ideas and thoughts amongst Christians in the East has always been moulded according to this version. Without an acquaintance with the Septuagint, numerous allusions in the writings of the Fathers become wholly unintelligible, and even important doctrinal discussions and difficulties (such even as some connected with the Arian controversy) become wholly unintelligible.

As the Septuagint was held in such honour in the East, it is no cause for surprise that this version was the basis of the other translations which were made in early times into vernacular tongues. There was, however, also another reason; -- the general ignorance of the original Hebrew amongst the early Christians prevented their forming their translations from the fountain itself. The especial exception to this remark is the Syriac version of the Old Testament formed at once from the Hebrew.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one comment I would like to add to Sir Brenton's essay, is that whenever he refers to "original Hebrew", what he really means or is actually referring to is Imperial Aramaic. Up until the early 20th Century, Biblical or Judeo-Christian scholars automatically[and INCORRECTLY] identified Imperial Aramaic as original Hebrew. Also, the Syriac language version of the Old Testament was NOT adapted from the Hebrew language version but vice versa.

In recent revision, it is surmised that the Alexandrian scholars who translated the ancient monotheist scriptures of the Middle East from OT[Oral Tradition] to WT[Written Tradition] in the Greek language, were NOT all monotheist or "Jewish" but a combined mixture of Egyptian "Jewish" or monotheist scholars and Hellenic polytheist scholars.

The schism between Near Eastern monotheists that came to be identified as Judeans[Yahudi] and Nazarenes[Nasrani] had NOT occured until the lifetime of Nabih Isa [6-4 BC/1 AD-29/33 AD]; the traditional narrative on the apellation of Judea[Yahudeh] and Judeans[Yahudi] was that they were of the tribe of Judah[Yahudah]; the Bani Israili tribal clan of Judah[Yahudah], of which Nabih Daud allegedly belonged, evolved into a tribe of its own. The Hunafa[Righteous] gnostic tradition upholds that Nabih Musa (a.s.) and Nabih Harun (a.s.) were not of the Bani Luayy[Levi] clan of the Bani Israil tribe, nor was Nabih Daud (a.s.) of the Bani Yahudah[Judah] clan of the Bani Israil tribe; both were of the Bani Yusuf[Joseph] clan of the virtually Egyptian Bani Israil tribe.

In the Holy Qur'an, Almighty Allah (swt) states that Nabih Yaqub al-Israil came from the Badw(Desert); which desert is not specified but a likely candidate would be the badw(desert) of Madyan[Midian] of NW Arabia. This logical candidacy is based upon the fact that Nabih Musa headed straight for Madyan[Midian] during his flight from Egypt[Misr]. In Hunafa gnostic tradition, Nabih Musa's father-in-law Shaykh Yathrab Al-Madyani[Elder Jethro the Midianite] was descended from Nabih Yaqub Israil's brother Esaum[Esau].

It is also important to note, that the SEPTUAGINTA was based upon the OT[Oral Traditions] of the Taurat[Torah] of Nabih Musa (a.s.) and the Sahifah or Psalms called the Zabur of Nabih Daud (a.s.); the original language of the Taurat was Old Hieratic of Egypt; the orginal language of the Zabur was Eblaic of Syria; Also, the Sahifah or Psalms of Nabih Daud (a.s.) was NOT a kitab[book] as the Taurat and the later Injil[Evangel]. This distinction is clearly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. Some Muslim scholars erroneously uphold the Zabur as an actual kitab[book] as the Taurat[Torah] and Injil[Evangel].

As it stands, the SEPTUAGINTA was history's very first Middle Eastern monotheist traditions translated and compiled for Western Civilization.

post-25505-12569411813661.jpg

A surviving manuscript of the Greek Septuaginta

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×