Jump to content


- - - -


Photo
- - - - -

Tashkent copy of Quran


31 replies to this topic

#1 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 07 February 2004 - 01:58 AM

I paste the following from various websites.I question the reliability of the Quran, and it's earliest manuscripts. One Quran being in Uzbekistan (tashkent) one being in Turkey. The one in Turkey however, im quite sure, is not allowed to be photographed or touched, so theres no way to know whats in there.
However, with the one in tashkent there exist pictures of the text online, in books, etc.
Below are some questions raised regarding the authenticity...It seems words/letters in the Uthmanic version differ from those of today.

Examples of human errors in the Tashkent Quran, the oldest available Quran:

Here are some of the correction done in the Tashkent copy of the Quran in comparison with 1924 edition of the Quran in Egypt made after Hafs. Remember these are only some of many examples. In all the next examples, the word ‘original’ means the Tashkent manuscript of the Quran.
Adding Nuns ;
The ‘original’ of 20:3 is without nun but the modern version includes it
________________________________
The ‘original’ of 36:20 is missing the Yaa and Nun which the modern version has. The ‘original’ of 36:21 is missing a Meem which the modern version has
In the ‘original’ the letter form for fa or qaf is present in 19:72 whereas the letter nun occurs in the modern versions

Adding Seen ;
The ‘original’ of 20:108 is without seen which is in the modern version.

Changing Seen into Sad ;
In the ‘original’ of 7:69 there isa  seen whereas in the modern versions the word has sad

Adding Yaa ;
The ‘original’ of 20:79 has nun whereas the modern version has yaa

In the ‘original’ , 38:26 is without yaa whereas the modern version has one

There is an extra yaa in 2:15 in the modern 1924 Egyptian Arabic EDITION

Adding Nun and Yaa ;
The ‘original’ of 18:83 has the letter meem that was replaced by the letters nun and yaa in the modern version.

Adding Whole words to the verses ;
The pronoun huwa [he] is present in the Tashkent-Samarqand ‘original’ of 2:284, whereas the modern Arabic version has the word Allah!!
In the modern version of 2:57 a word "Alykum" appears which is not in the ‘original’ but a small portion remains in the margin where it was sought to ‘add’ it.

Replacing an Alif with a Yaa;
In the ‘original’ an alif in 5:99 was replaced in the  the modern Arabic version with yaa.

Changing Lam into Tha ;
In the ‘original’ of 6:11, the letter lam precedes the mim whereas in the modern version a letter tha is in its place.

Removing words:
In the ‘original’ of 7:27 there is the letters meem and nun, which are not in the modern Arabic version.

And many more examples that can make this article very long. Of the copies made by Uthman, two still exist to our day. One is in the city of Tashkent, (Uzbekistan) and the second one is in Istanbul (Turkey). Below is a brief account of both these copies:

1. The copy which Uthman sent to Madina was reportedly removed by the Turkish authorities to Istanbul, from where it came to Berlin during World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, which concluded World War I, contains the following clause:

'Article 246: Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to His Majesty, King of Hedjaz, the original Koran of Caliph Othman, which was removed from Madina by the Turkish authorities and is stated to have been presented to the ex-Emperor William II". [36]

'This manuscript then reached Istanbul, but not Madina (Where it now resides)'.
II. The earliest complete Koran manuscript in existence:
The Muslim claim:
"In other words: two of the copies of the Qur’an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today and their texts and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur’an, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found to be identical." (Von Denffer, Ulum al-Qur’an, p 64)
Although Muslims proclaim they have a Koran that dates to the time of Muhammad, the Reality is different.
Two ancient copies of Koran that are in existence are the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do not know, is that because these two manuscripts were written in a script style called "Kufic", practicing Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts been compiled any earlier, they would have been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989)
Now we do have one ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, that is housed in the British Museum in London (Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144). But scholar Martin Lings, who was not only a practicing Muslim, but also a former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD, making it the earliest. On the other hand Yasir Qadhi notes one Islamic Masters/PhD scholar who believes the Samarqand MSS is the ‘most likely candidate for the original’.
It is unknown, even by Muslims that authorities will not release photographs of the ancient Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and so there are no known studies on it. This is why the Muslim apologist, M. Saifullah had to state "Concerning the Topkapi manuscript we are not aware of studies done it." (Who's Afraid Of Textual Criticism?, M. S. M. Saifullah, 'Abd ar-Rahman Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem) What is in this manuscript that Muslims are afraid to let the world see? After all in Qur'an 2:111 it says "Produce your proof if you are truthful."
Even the earliest fragmentary manuscripts of the Koran are all dated no earlier than 100 years after Muhammad died.
Add to this the fact that there is no archeological evidence dated at the time when Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact, manuscript or inscription has ever been found were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a prophet".
If you don’t believe me, listen to faithful Muslim, Ahmad Von Denffer, in his book, Ulum al Quran, in a chapter called, Old Manuscripts Of The Qur'an, "Most of the early original Qur'an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable fragments, that are still available to us now, are not earlier than the second century after the Hijra. [or 800 AD] The earliest copy, which was exhibited in the British Museum during the 1976 World of Islam Festival, dated from the late second century.' However, there are also a number of odd fragments of Qur'anic papyri available, which date from the first century." (Grohmann, A.: Die Entstehung des Koran und die altesten Koran- Handschriften', in: Bustan, 1961, pp. 33-8)
III. Textual variations in the different versions of the Koran:

* In Qur’an 2:284 we find the word 'Allah' in the modern Egyptian Qur'an, but in the Tashkent MSS, we fing the word 'huwa' (the pronoun 'he'). Which word are we to believe was in the "preserved master tablet" and "mother of all books" in heaven? In fact there are four more places this same thing happens in Q2:283 Q3:37, Q3:109 and Q5:119. (Modern Islamic scholars Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah who has mode copies of the Tashkent/Samarqand Mss for distribution world-wide, also notes this type of problem in the Qur'anic text. He says that the problem occurs four or five times. Muslims are generally informed that the Qur'an is of such a high quality of Arabic that no one but Allah could have written it. Yet this is not what some great Islamic scholars have admitted. For example, the great ibn Khaldun wrote in his Muqaddimah that the men around Muhammad were unable to write well and thus made many errors in the Qur'an. He further goes on to note that some scholars - whom he calls incompetent - contend that there are no problems in the Qur'an's text and that Allah intended it to be as it is. The problem is that the 'incompetent' scholars state that the meaning of the particular verse cited should say 'no' (because of the extra letter), while ibn Khaldun's group (and the modern Qur'an translations) want the text to say 'yes'. He gives further examples which he say the scholars note. ("Brother Mark, author of "The perfect Koran"))
* The text of Q37:103 in the modern Qur'an translates "they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)" while the text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, "they did not submitted their wills" (they did NOT become Muslims.)
* The rhetoric of "a perfect Koran", is false.
* When one examines the various Arabic texts of the Qur'an in print world-wide, one finds that the numbers of these extra letters in fact vary widely. It appears that some Muslims do not like to have these letters in the Qur'anic texts. And one can understand why for in W.W. Wright's 'A Grammar of the Arabic Language', we find in Vol. 2, Sec. 20, p. 41 a clear grammatical rule in which he uses the Qur'anic text of Q3:158 (where an ecxtra alif appears in many texts). The rule forces those texts with the extra alif to give the meaning 'no' instead of 'yes'. ("Brother Mark, author of "The perfect Koran")

Edited by 4christ, 07 February 2004 - 02:59 AM.


#2 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 07 February 2004 - 02:56 AM

Basically i raise this because it nags at me...if the Uthamic version is different from what exists today, how do we know what the REAL Quran is? And if Allah protected the Quran, how come it would take place that the majority of Muslims would not know the correct placement of Surahs according to revelation (as shia claim Ali put together such) it seems like the Quran wasnt protected completely, at least in the hands of average Muslims...

#3 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 07 February 2004 - 03:05 AM

Also, about the above differences which are mentioned...
I have a linkshowing the actual uthmanic text compared with the modern day Quranic verses,
showing the letters/etc. taken out or added.

#4 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 07 February 2004 - 03:07 AM

http://www.submissio...an/protect.html

Yes this is a submitter/tucsoner/rashad khalifa site which i AM aware does not conform with Islam beliefs, and is a heretic sect. However im using this site (which came up on a keyword search for tashkent Quran) to show the differences that some say exist.

#5 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 12:15 AM

Still nobody has peeped a word in this thread. Muslims have been speechless on other chat forums in response to this. Apparently i found out...there are many different versions throughout history, uthman destroyed the 7 main ones at his time, and now the only oldest one we have which is accredited to his time is DIFFERENT than the one we have today..

"go to soc.religion.islam.... look up Abdulrahman Lomax... he obtained a microfilm copy of the Taskent Quran and did private study on it"

This was done by a MUSLIM who showed some differences in the two. In one instance, the WHOLE meaning was changed!!!! In another a word was changed (from Allah to Huwa) I now am sure that the Quran is not 100% divinely protected in the hands of mainstream Muslims. You may argue Allah protects the Quran with the Imams/in jannah/etc. but the Quran which most people on this forum have is undoubtedly different then the original.

* The text of Q37:103 in the modern Qur'an translates "they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)" while the text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, "they did not submitted their wills"

a couple interesting links....
http://answering-isl...ch9b-index.html
aperfectquran.org.uk

I HOPE SOMEONE REPLIES!

#6 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 12:25 AM

it seems both the meaning and word usage in the Quran has changed. This is only what we know comparing the tashkent and current copy. i suspect much more exists. What, in support of the Quran, do you have to reply against this?

#7 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 03:06 AM

Speaking of 3 days.....Its now occured in 3 days that noone has replied to this thread. :-)

#8 wayfaring man

wayfaring man

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 03:35 AM

Pots will call kettles black ; but that which is stainless still gleams .

A notable effort of research 4 christ !

wm

#9 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 03:58 AM

Unfortunately, your respones wasnt from a Muslim...
i still have hope :-) lol j/k..Maybe tomorrow a muslim will reply to this thread.....
so far i have either been told that *im being lied to, and this tashkent copy does NOT say this..or ive
heard no response....

#10 iraqi_shia

iraqi_shia

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 February 2004 - 11:41 AM

i only have ur word for this, bring us proof, images, etc

then we can start to disguss this, otherwise there is noting to discuss.

#11 US Patriot

US Patriot

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 12:26 PM

Unfortunately, your respones wasnt from a Muslim...
i still have hope :-) lol j/k..Maybe tomorrow a muslim will reply to this thread.....
so far i have either been told that *im being lied to, and this tashkent copy does NOT say this..or ive
heard no response....


I'm not a muslim either, 4christ. You may well not hear any rational reply. I've posted a number of contradictions in the quran as well as challenging any muslim to offer a rational rebuttal to my claims that there is no "original" manuscript of any quran, hence, nothing with which to compare current (altered, corrupted) copies to an original.

#12 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 02:59 PM

Well apparently peope just assume since i dont have picture evidence (although some is provided on the links i gave) and at that its still taking their word. All i can say is a muslim scholar went to tashkent, and pointed these things out. He is still Muslim, but doesnt believe the Quran is word for word perfect.
I was hoping someone would know about the tashkent Quran and be able to prove *such contradictions dont exist or *something is being misunderstood but however it doesnt seem so.....

#13 iraqi_shia

iraqi_shia

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 February 2004 - 03:02 PM

lol, post ur ur evidence so we can see it, we cant just talk about accusations we need evidence.

#14 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 12:38 AM

As i said, i provided links with pictures of the Uthmanic verses, and the Current ones.
Compares them, and circles the words which there is change in.

http://answering-isl...ch9b-index.html

http://www.submissio...an/protect.html

For anyone who is uncapable of going to these sites to read the evidence, i suppose i could find a way to upload the pictures off of them onto this forum. Also earlier in the thread, i listed a Muslim who went to tashkent and made his own notes, and i showed how to read and find his writings.

#15 FriendlyGuy

FriendlyGuy

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:02 AM

You are probably wondering why no one is responding. Thats cause we have nothing to say. In 1400 years, no one has made such a claim (that the Quran is corrupt), and as such we're dumbfounded you would strike one up now.

Are you actually claiming that there are 2 different versions of the Quran and that only 5 people on Earth in the history of time have noticed?

As for the Uthmani argument, every living individual accepted that the socalled Uthmani Quran was completely valid. Even Shias acknowledge this.

BTW please dont call it the Uthmani Quran - uthman didn't do anything to contribute for it except for to pay an individual (a Shia individual) to do all the work.

#16 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:46 AM

" In 1400 years, no one has made such a claim (that the Quran is corrupt), and as such we're dumbfounded you would strike one up now. "

I am positive that over 1400 years of islamic history MANY non muslims-whether lying to destroy islam or honestly believing such- have raised more than this claim i have. In this claim i only say less then a couple dozen verses are different. It is not that i strike something up now, these strikes have occured for a long time. If you are referring to the Tashkent Quran, there are many reasons as to why this was only recently "struck". The copy itself was carried around throughout the political scenes of history, im sure many Muslim leaders, etc. forbade the public from seeing the copy! Whether out of fear of someone destroying it, someone causing 'fitnah', or someone finding differences within it. The differences are VERY small, in only 16 or so verses, and so one would have to almost read the whole Quran to notice the differences, as in most cases they are letter placements/removals, although sometimes a whole word is changed. I am glad you posted in here, although i am not convinced in the truth of the Quran from what you have said. I opened this reason for muslim responses, as this is the main reason i am not going to become Muslim.

"Are you actually claiming that there are 2 different versions of the Quran and that only 5 people on Earth in the history of time have noticed? "

No i am not claiming that there are 2 different versions. Im claiming there are MORE than two. I myself know some who have had Qurans where ALL of the word Allah has been taken out of surah 2. Some say this was put together by Israeli mossad to create fitnah. Whatever the reason, there are SOME that are clearly changed, although i dont argue on those. Uthman destroyed the 7 common versions of the Quran at his time, for the sake of Islamic unity. As of now, i only see these 2 existing today. Im reading articles on other words that have been added or taken out over time. But it seems clear to me, as ive seen nothing to prove otherwise, the Quran in tashkent (basically the only piece other than the one in istanbul to support textual integrity of the Quran) is DIFFERENT than the current one.

I am sure more than 5 people believe in such a change in the Quran. First of all, One muslim i talked to agrees with me. that makes two. The Muslim who traveled to tashkent agrees, making 3. Whoever is behind the Rashid khilafa article must agree, that makes 4. And the people from asnwering/islam must agree as it is on their site, making 5. the author of a main book showing these problems known as "brother Mark" also agrees, making 6. His book is titled "a perfect Quran; or so it was made to appear". I am very sure more than 6 people agree on this. I have found 2 Muslims who agree with me! They speak of the Quran not being protected word by word- as "only Allah is perfect". If Muslims can agree with me im sure Many non Muslims especially those who hate islam agree with this tashkent theory/evidence. So no, not only 5.\

"As for the Uthmani argument, every living individual accepted that the socalled Uthmani Quran was completely valid. Even Shias acknowledge this. "

Im not sure of 'completely valid'. Shia believe that Imam Amir al momineen Ali composed a Quran according to the chronological order of revelation. One of the last verses or ayaat revealed in Surah al Maida (used by many shia to support Ghadeer Khum) was put in the BEGINNING of the Quran (surah 5 of 114) also many Shia believe in the tafsir of Ali (which i realize is NOT the Quran) but chronological order and, ive heard some say different Markings or vowel pronounciations. This isnt to mention the minority of Shia who believe in complete Surahs missing!

When i call it the "uthmani Quran" i title it that because its the one endorsed and distributed under Uthmans eye, according to that Quraishi dialect.

I still am not convinced that the Tashkent copy is the same as the current one, therefore i still believe the Quran is not divinely protected. This thread i dont post in and use for fitnah, simply for understanding.
And if the truth is Islam, and it is clear- let it shine. :-)

#17 FriendlyGuy

FriendlyGuy

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 02:01 AM

Im not sure of 'completely valid'. Shia believe that Imam Amir al momineen Ali composed a Quran according to the chronological order of revelation. One of the last verses or ayaat revealed in Surah al Maida (used by many shia to support Ghadeer Khum) was put in the BEGINNING of the Quran (surah 5 of 114) also many Shia believe in the tafsir of Ali (which i realize is NOT the Quran) but chronological order and, ive heard some say different Markings or vowel pronounciations. This isnt to mention the minority of Shia who believe in complete Surahs missing!

You can be made assure of the "complete validity" assigned to the Quran by all true Shias (and sunnis for that matter). Shia believe that Imam Ali voluntarily and openly gave his approval of the Quran present today.

You seem to be aware of history, and you will note that there was a rather remarkable effort by Uthman to remove all Quran's of different versions after the "standard" was established. Since then, Muslims everywhere have objected to any different version of the Quran.

I find it completely remarkable that in my last 8 years of life, studying Islam as a Muslim (I was born Muslim, but sadly I wasn't a good one, inshallah my studies will help me become better and better), and studying Islam objectively as a scientist, that I have never heard of more than one version of the Quran existing throughout history and Muslims being completely unaware. I find it remarkable that as a member of Shiachat for a ridiculously long amount of time (no, this isnt my first screenname), I have never heard of different Qurans followed by Muslims.

I'm sure you can find countless ignorants to support your position, but what I meant by my statement of '5 people' was that no reputable scholar or historian believes in your multiple Qurans or alteration of the currently accepted Quran from the original. Having something published does not make you a reputable scholar or historian in any circle of academia. Fieldwide recognition is the main qualifier.

The Quran itself proclaims its divinity and its own protection. The Imams are the protectors of the Quran as well. For a so-called Muslim to claim otherwise is literally ridiculous.

Edited by FriendlyGuy, 09 February 2004 - 02:02 AM.


#18 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 02:15 AM

I was shi'i for several months, and i do really know many shia who believed Ali compiled a Quran according to the date of revelation-wahy- that is not found in the current copy we have...

As for those Muslims who are aware of the apparent differences in the tashkent Quran, you should be careful
of who you call ignorant. I know what i have seen with my eyes. I know that some who at least claim to be Muslim, are aware of changes in the current one and the tashkent copy. The Quran does claim divinity, and this is why i doubt the Quran, as i doubt its perfect protection.
really, ask shi'a, if Imam Ali put together a quran that Uthman did not use-and if Ali's had the correct listing of verses, which Uthmans does NOT. You agree that in surah 5, the verse revealed refers to the Imamah of Ali, right? well what came first. Surah al 'alaq (iqra bism rabikem) where Jibril recited the first verses to Muhammed in the cave in Mina, or the verse "i have perfected Islam" and the other referring to Ghadeer khum in surah 5? Surah 5 comes before surah 96, yet the events in surah 96 occurred before those in surah 5. Once again, i am almost positive that Shia believe Ali put together such a Quran, with the correct listing of events.

#19 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 03:09 AM

Its been a few days, and i was hoping someone would know about this copy in tashkent, and have something to show me it *isnt genuine or *the verses dont say such....i was hoping for a reply from Naziri, and others..but perhaps its vacation time from shia chat :-)

#20 iraqi_shia

iraqi_shia

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 09 February 2004 - 11:09 AM

naziri was banned, the information from submission is quite dodgy becuase it is based from a deviant sect who made a code about the quran, and when someone proved their code wrong, they thought that someone had changed the quran based on their silly math code.

The information from the other site, answering islam, is new to me and i hope either i or someone else will research and put forward some kind of explanation.

#21 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 02:28 PM

Oh Naziri was banned a second time? Anyawys, the information is not only from non Muslim sources.
As i said, a Muslim has done research on this and came to the same conclusion...

"go to soc.religion.islam.... look up Abdulrahman Lomax... he obtained a microfilm copy of the Taskent Quran and did private study on it"

#22 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 03:56 PM

If you would like to see pages from Quran im speaking of, laying on display, click on this link: http://www.themodern..._PICS_quran.htm
They also have two pictures showing how the Quran has not changed-as well as a picture of another Quran (in turkey) on display. however these arent the verses i am questioning.


Also," Caliph Uthman (ruled 644-56) had the text of the Quran forcibly standardized. He commanded manuscripts with alternative readings to be burned. But he didn't fully succeed, since variations are still known to have existed and some still do. The Sura Al-Saff had 200 verses in the days of Muhammad's later wife Ayesha, but Uthman's version had only 52. . In his manuscript of the Quran, Ubai had a few Suras that Uthman omitted from the standardized version. Arthur Jeffrey, in his Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran, gives 90 pages of variant readings for the Quran's text, finding 140 alone for Sura 2. When the Western scholar Bertrasser sought to photograph a rare Kufic manuscript of the Quran which had "certain curious features" in Cairo, the Egyptian Library suddenly withdrew it, and denied him access to it. "

A Muslim site says the following on the history of these two copies:
"
Of the copies made by Uthman, two still exist to our day. One is in the city of Tashkent, (Uzbekistan) and the second one is in Istanbul (Turkey). Below is a brief account of both these copies:
1. The copy which Uthman sent to Madina was reportedly removed by the Turkish authorities to Istanbul, from where it came to Berlin during World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, which concluded World War I, contains the following clause:
'Article 246: Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to His Majesty, King of Hedjaz, the original Koran of Caliph Othman, which was removed from Madina by the Turkish authorities and is stated to have been presented to the ex-Emperor William II". (36)
'This manuscript then reached Istanbul, but not Madina (Where it now resides)'. (37)
2. The second copy in existence is kept in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. 'It may be the Imam (master) manuscript or one of the other copies made at the time of Uthman'. (38)
It Came to Samarkand in 890 Hijra (1485) and remained there till 1868. Then it was taken to St.Petersburg by the Russians in 1869. It remained there till 1917. A Russian orientalist gave a detailed description of it, saying that many pages were damaged and some were missing. A facsimile, some 50 copies, of this mushaf (copy) was produced by S.Pisareff in 1905. A copy was sent to the Ottoman Sultan 'Abdul Hamid, to the Shah of Iran, to the Amir of Bukhara, to Afghanistan, to Fas and some important Muslim personalities. One copy is now in the Columbia University Library (U.S.A.). (39)
'The Manuscript was afterwards returned to its former place and reached Tashkent in 1924, where it has remained since'. (40) "
http://www.nellaieru...m/qurantext.asp
They also claim the following "'Two of the copies of the Qur'an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph Uthman, are still available to us today and their text and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to do, with any other copy of the Quran, be it in print or handwritten, from any place or period of time. They will be found identical'. "

So here a Muslim is claiming NO differences exist between the Tashkent and Current copy. But do i trust their word over another Muslim who studied it personally? no.

#23 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 10 February 2004 - 02:16 AM

I suppose i will quit posting this subject on this site, as it doesnt seem anyone will have any replies.
The Question still lingers however, i have even sent a short form of this question to muslim scholars.
if any muslim reading this has anything to say, proving otherwise about the tashkent Quran, please post it.

#24 Guest_Islam Liberates Women_*

Guest_Islam Liberates Women_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 February 2004 - 02:32 AM

salaam

i would love to answer your question if i could... but unfortunately i haven't ever heard of this before. if i come across something, i will be sure to let you know.

as for answering-islam, i would be suspicious of just about anything from that site, as they are an anti-islam propaghanda page. aren't they the same people that say Allah is the moon god? lol.

khalilah

#25 4christ

4christ

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 10 February 2004 - 03:24 AM

Rizas Earth, thanks and if you do find anything to answer this, please do post it!

As far as answering-islam, i know they have many lies on their site. I simply linked to their site to show the
pictures of what im referring to, and other people's statements on this.

Once again though, i am NOT taking this information from answering islam, submission, or other non muslim sources alone. I have met Muslims who agree with these claims on the Quran being changed a very little bit. I have heard Muslims say such claims do not exist, ( as i posted earlier) although i doubt they have looked into it. anyways, if you find anything relevant to this 'tashkent crisis' lol j/k please post it!



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users