Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
andres

Is the infancy of Christianity better documented than that of Islam?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

If Uthman didn’t destroy other books we could see that they didn’t have too much difference from each other ,hi work was same as first caliph that burned many Hadith books after demise of prophet(as) if it was not because of Imam Ali(as) we didn’t have anything now

By corruption I mean a Book where the meaning has changed. Sanaa Quran has different orders of the Suras, this does not change the meaning of the content. Sentences are also not always similar. This does not necessarily change the meaning either  ( It can, if one like Trump "forgets" a negation). We read translations where sentences sound and look totally different, but the meaning still can be the same as in original Arabic. Muhammed himself could very well have used different wording when retelling the words if the Angel, which could have resulted in different versions.

In the same way the Books of the Bible have not been corrupted. There may be additions, like the obvious last chapter of Johns Gospel that imformes us that the preceeding chapters were written by the "beloved desciple" or the ending of Mark, that may have been lost. As long ad these variations do not alter the content of the Gospels, corruption is much to strong a word to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, iCambrian said:

@Anonymous2144 said  

"1. No the the Sanaa Quran is not true Quran since it’s different and has some editing, if you edite a world or Change a surah from the Quran then the Quran would not make sense at all, if you knew how to read Arabic you would know the Sanaa Quran is fake and an attempt to corrupt the Quran. "

Hes wrong.

You can simply look at any article on it, or even the pictures of its actual text.

The text is the same as we have today, letter for letter.

The "controversy" is that the parchment used was used several times before and has other things on it etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, andres said:

It is obviously written during the Medina period while Muhammed still was alive. That is between 622-632AD, correct me if I am wrong. I notice that Jews are mentioned, Christians not. Seemingly they did not exist in Medina. There is however a convenant with Christians 1200 miles south of Medina. The Medina constitution must be earlier, before Muhammeds army had expanded that far, so in the earlier period of 622-632. There is no doubt that Muhammed was the sovereign ruler. In this respect a very different situation from that of Jesus. 

There seems to be no Arab written documents before Medina. The Arab culture developed explosively.

Its mainly between tribes, rather than religions, but Jews were tribes and religions if that makes sense. Im not sure why Christians were not, from my understanding, they hadn't formed into groups or had any significant population in the area. However, the principle was to unify all people under a common set of laws and start to introduce civilization. Later started the welfare state etc.

Its important to understand that the Jewish tribes had no real interest in the affairs of other non Jewish groups. The polytheists were caveman like in their morals and the Christians had no sense of state, or legal system, so had nothing to really offer in the sense of running a city on a day to day basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Hes wrong.

You can simply look at any article on it, or even the pictures of its actual text.

The text is the same as we have today, letter for letter.

The "controversy" is that the parchment used was used several times before and has other things on it etc.

Do you have an opinion on the commentary of the article below?

 

https://www.academia.edu/25775465/Variant_readings_The_Birmingham_Qur_an_in_the_Context_of_Debate_on_Islamic_Origins_Times_Literary_Supplement_7_Aug_2015_14-15

 

This person has suggested the presence of different words or words that are not present in the modern Quran as well as Surah being ordered differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Do you have an opinion on the commentary of the article below?

 

https://www.academia.edu/25775465/Variant_readings_The_Birmingham_Qur_an_in_the_Context_of_Debate_on_Islamic_Origins_Times_Literary_Supplement_7_Aug_2015_14-15

 

This person has suggested the presence of different words or words that are not present in the modern Quran as well as Surah being ordered differently.

There are several issues raised.

Firstly the article is incorrect in that it assumes the Quran was not organised and formalised until Uthman's rule. This is not my position, nor that of the shia to my understanding. Our view is that it was collected in the lifetime of the Prophet SAW and the carbon dating of the Birmingham quran confirms this to be the case.

The author of the article is not really inline with the researchers and evidence. He is comparing the washed off parchment to today's quran. The parchment had been used several times and washed, and on the last time it was kept with the quran, as we have today. They used some technique to see what was written on it before, and it was likely that it was a practicing scribe as they said his writing was untidy, varying sizes, spelling mistakes, doodles etc. 

Andres also made the same mistake, in that he just assumed that if someone wrote anything down that even resembled the quran, then it must be another version of the quran, and there are multiple versions and everything has to stop etc.

The author does admit that the Birmingham quran is same as today, however he keeps that quite low key. He almost seems to be implying the Quran pre dates Islam, which is strange.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

There are several issues raised.

Firstly the article is incorrect in that it assumes the Quran was not organised and formalised until Uthman's rule. This is not my position, nor that of the shia to my understanding. Our view is that it was collected in the lifetime of the Prophet SAW and the carbon dating of the Birmingham quran confirms this to be the case.

The author of the article is not really inline with the researchers and evidence. He is comparing the washed off parchment to today's quran. The parchment had been used several times and washed, and on the last time it was kept with the quran, as we have today. They used some technique to see what was written on it before, and it was likely that it was a practicing scribe as they said his writing was untidy, varying sizes, spelling mistakes, doodles etc. 

Andres also made the same mistake, in that he just assumed that if someone wrote anything down that even resembled the quran, then it must be another version of the quran, and there are multiple versions and everything has to stop etc.

The author does admit that the Birmingham quran is same as today, however he keeps that quite low key. He almost seems to be implying the Quran pre dates Islam, which is strange.

 

 

 

Nobody knows for sure if the Quran was collected while Muhammed still lived. 

It is not at all certain when the Birmingham Quran was written. It could be during Muhammeds time, it could be later. Same with the Sanaa. Certain is that they are both early, and that they differ. 

Sanaa could be a practising scribe. But if so, what did he copy? Certainly not the Urhman Quran. More likely a Quran Uthman tried to extinguish.

Could the Quran have borrowed material from before Muhammed? Difficult to say. I am not surprised some experts speculate. This is what experts do, they do not start by saying; "everything that goes against the Quran being the perfect word of God, or what Shia tradition say, must be wrong". 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the "lower" part of the document, the part that has been washed off and re-written?

The lower text appears to be of Quranic scripture as well, and it having varying words or even additional or missing words and out of order Surah, appears to suggest that it was some sort of alternate version of scripture.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 11:34 PM, andres said:

Nobody knows for sure if the Quran was collected while Muhammed still lived. 

It is not at all certain when the Birmingham Quran was written. It could be during Muhammeds time, it could be later. Same with the Sanaa. Certain is that they are both early, and that they differ. 

Sanaa could be a practising scribe. But if so, what did he copy? Certainly not the Urhman Quran. More likely a Quran Uthman tried to extinguish.

Could the Quran have borrowed material from before Muhammed? Difficult to say. I am not surprised some experts speculate. This is what experts do, they do not start by saying; "everything that goes against the Quran being the perfect word of God, or what Shia tradition say, must be wrong". 

Incorrect Andres. They do not differ. The writing on them now is identical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 11:59 PM, iCambrian said:

Is the "lower" part of the document, the part that has been washed off and re-written?

The lower text appears to be of Quranic scripture as well, and it having varying words or even additional or missing words and out of order Surah, appears to suggest that it was some sort of alternate version of scripture.

The lower text is the washed off text, it is obviously incomplete and consists of quranic passages and non quranic passages.

Not sure why you assume its an alternate version?

The experts say it is very likely just a scribe practicing as the handwriting is poor, and their are basic spelling mistakes etc. Its very likely to be simply a practice run, and then washed and done for "neat"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

The lower text is the washed off text, it is obviously incomplete and consists of quranic passages and non quranic passages.

Not sure why you assume its an alternate version?

The experts say it is very likely just a scribe practicing as the handwriting is poor, and their are basic spelling mistakes etc. Its very likely to be simply a practice run, and then washed and done for "neat"

It is rather close to Uthmans, but not exacly the same. Experts say it cant be copying error. What they copied was not Uthmans Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

The lower text is the washed off text, it is obviously incomplete and consists of quranic passages and non quranic passages.

Not sure why you assume its an alternate version?

The experts say it is very likely just a scribe practicing as the handwriting is poor, and their are basic spelling mistakes etc. Its very likely to be simply a practice run, and then washed and done for "neat"

Even the upper text contains, according to wiki, 17 non orthographic variants. Which are not spelling mistakes, but rather word additions, changes in words, and word subtractions.

The link below lists a number of variants in the lower text as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript#Contents_of_the_manuscript

Based on the number of variants in both the lower and upper texts, i dont see why they couldnt be alternate writings of scripture.

To settle the question, we would probably have to know who the author was. I wouldnt necessarily assume that it were just some 10 year old child who didnt know what they were doing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

Even the upper text contains, according to wiki, 17 non orthographic variants. Which are not spelling mistakes, but rather word additions, changes in words, and word subtractions.

In essence, even the most famous of the (very few) alternative transcripts of the Qur'an published in the fourteen centuries since its revelation has a grand total of seventeen 'word changes' amongst the tens of thousands of transcribed words (in the nearly 1000 separate codices) contained within the cache. Seventeen, and despite Wikipedia's description of them as non-orthographic, the majority of these differences do not result in any tangible change in meaning within the verse, as you can see even from the list of differences in the lower text documented in the article you referenced.

The fact that we're debating whether or not an ancient, fragmented manuscript of the Qur'an that may well have been gathered before its codification — whether that was before or after the Prophet's death — has barely over a dozen errors when compared to the modern version is a vindication of the Qur'an's relative preservation in itself. No comparison with the Bible's history of contradictions and conflicts deserves merit.

1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

Based on the number of variants in both the lower and upper texts, i dont see why they couldnt be alternate writings of scripture.

To settle the question, we would probably have to know who the author was. I wouldnt necessarily assume that it were just some 10 year old child who didnt know what they were doing.

Your statement to which I've added emphasis directly clashes with what preeminent scholars researching this very manuscript have to say (and with all due respect, I think I'll take what Oxford professors postulate over someone who didn't even know of the existence of the Sana'a manuscript one forum page ago).

The Guardian has quoted Oxford and UChicago Prof. Tarif Khalidi as saying that the traditional Muslim account of the Koran's development is still more or less true. 'I haven't yet seen anything to radically alter my view,' he says. The same article states that Professor Allen Jones also believes that the Sana'a Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet. 'It's not inconceivable that after the promulgation of the Uthmanic text, it took a long time to filter down.' Similarly, Behnam Sadeghi (Stanford University) and Mohsen Goudarzi (Harvard University), who've extensively studied the manuscripts, echo my claim that only "a small fraction of the variants do make a difference in meaning."

Anyhow, I don't see how this manuscript, especially taking into consideration the more uniform, coherent, and homogeneous upper text it contains, poses some sort of groundbreaking new discovery. The existence and elimination of slightly varied Qur'anic manuscripts possessed by certain Companions (such as 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud, one of the more famous) during the reign of Uthman's régime is well-documented in both of Islam's streams of thought. In this aspect, at least, Islamic tradition is well-cognizant of the fact that scriptures, whether they be the Qur'an or the Bible, aren't revealed into some sort of theoretical vacuum in which none of the billions to touch the books since will have altered them. The inevitable consequences of the social milieu of rural Arabia/Ancient Yemen and the propagation of an unmodified text through thousands of kilometers of desert in a yet unlettered society are obvious. What's more important is that Allah (s.w.t.)'s promise to preserve the Qur'an in Surah Fuṣṣilat, 

 

quran image Fussilat42

"No falsehood will come to it, in the present or in the future; (a revelation from One who is Wise and Praiseworthy)." (41:42),

 

has been kept by God's grace.

As Professor Lang recapitulates:

“(...) the manuscripts show some unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. However, the past existence of such manuscripts is well known to Muslims and those that did not completely agree with the Uthmanic text were eliminated in various ways. The recovery of an ancient manuscript dating back to the earliest history of Islam that differs in minor ways from the Uthmanic text and that was eliminated from circulation will hardly cause Muslims to feel the need to rewrite their history; if anything, it will only confirm it for them.”

Edited by Shaykh Patience101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

The fact that we're debating whether or not an ancient, fragmented manuscript of the Qur'an that may well have been gathered before its codification — whether that was before or after the Prophet's death — has barely over a dozen errors when compared to the modern version is a vindication of the Qur'an's relative preservation in itself. No comparison with the Bible's history of contradictions and conflicts deserves merit.

I think what's happening is that the shoe is on the other foot. I wouldn't underestimate iCambrian, he can find just about anything, study everything everybody has reported and summarize it within a forum page. There's no new discoveries, just old reports and opinions.

Actually the comparison between the Bible and the Quran isn't that far off, history wise. Basically the same steps for the same reasons. People, places and times differ.

I'm finding most "contradictions" come from Muslims convinced the events were not possible, rather than anything solid, most conflicts are with doctrines, not scripture.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ya know, a variance in text, is a variance in text. And these variances involving additions of words, or subtractions, or changes in words etc., whether its 10 changes, or 1000, it is what it is.

As someone who doesn't read arabic, 

going from this:         صَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ[                to               وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّـهِ وَكُفْرٌۢ بِهِ   ,   seems significant to me.

And it makes me wonder, what all was out there, before the construction of the final version and the subsequent removal and destruction of alternatives.

 

and regarding this next statement:

"No comparison with the Bible's history of contradictions and conflicts deserves merit."

I think the differences is that, people acknowledge that the Bible is something constructed by people.

Whereas with the Quran, people seldom actually discuss where Quranuc scripture came from. Which could be a product of our ignorance. 

And I think it's interesting that someone would actually destroy literature to...basically hide what existed. 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Well ya know, a variance in text, is a variance in text. And these variances involving additions of words, or subtractions, or changes in words etc., whether its 10 changes, or 1000, it is what it is.

As someone who doesn't read arabic, 

going from this:         صَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ[                to               وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّـهِ وَكُفْرٌۢ بِهِ   ,   seems significant to me.

And it makes me wonder, what all was out there, before the construction of the final version and the subsequent removal and destruction of alternatives.

 

and regarding this next statement:

"No comparison with the Bible's history of contradictions and conflicts deserves merit."

I think the differences is that, people acknowledge that the Bible is something constructed by people.

Whereas with the Quran, people seldom actually discuss where Quranuc scripture came from. Which could be a product of our ignorance. 

And I think it's interesting that someone would actually destroy literature to...basically hide what existed. 

That is in the lower washed off text.

The upper text doesnt have that. The upper text has no vowel 

Firstly its so hard to see what is there, as its washed off, most of it has gaps. Secondly the lower text is not taken seriously, just as your doodles on a scrap piece of paper are not the same as your well prepared dissertation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 10:31 AM, Son of Placid said:

First time I've heard of a Sanaa Quran.

It is a very recent find and it was in the news.

Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, there will always be stuff deposited in caves and other places when people lost their homes and their belongings landed in caves etc.

But there has to be a very good reason to give even a sliver of authenticity to such scrolls and parchments.

It doesn't make sense, saying "look, we have found another Quran, now prove to me that yours is the correct one."

On the contrary, the onus is those who wish to wish to claim authenticity for their new find.

It would not be far-fetched to suggest that someone may have compiled his own notes based on the Quran or on the Prophet's teachings or both, like I did recently, and that may explain the absence of copying errors.

Every screed that looks like the Quran is not necessarily a candidate for an alternative Quran. 

I should probably destroy my notes before I go just in case someone finds them somewhere a thousand years from now and says "hey, look, we have found another Quran."

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

That is in the lower washed off text.

The upper text doesnt have that. The upper text has no vowel 

Firstly its so hard to see what is there, as its washed off, most of it has gaps. Secondly the lower text is not taken seriously, just as your doodles on a scrap piece of paper are not the same as your well prepared dissertation. 

We don't really know the origins of this document. What we can see are large portions of Quranic scripture, just with changes to it.

 

Something existed and was intentionally destroyed in the history of Islam. I don't think ignoring the possibilities of what this could be, does anything for our understanding of Islam.

 

The person above suggested that perhaps it was a flawed copy or flawed version of scripture that existed prior to Uthmans compilation of scripture and subsequent destruction of alternatives.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, baqar said:

It is a very recent find and it was in the news.

Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, there will always be stuff deposited in caves and other places when people lost their homes and their belongings landed in caves etc.

But there has to be a very good reason to give even a sliver of authenticity to such scrolls and parchments.

It doesn't make sense, saying "look, we have found another Quran, now prove to me that yours is the correct one."

On the contrary, the onus is those who wish to wish to claim authenticity for their new find.

It would not be far-fetched to suggest that someone may have compiled his own notes based on the Quran or on the Prophet's teachings or both, like I did recently, and that may explain the absence of copying errors.

Every screed that looks like the Quran is not necessarily a candidate for an alternative Quran. 

I should probably destroy my notes before I go just in case someone finds them somewhere a thousand years from now and says "hey, look, we have found another Quran."

I have a feeling this Sanaa text was much like the Dead sea scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi library. Squirreled away while everything else was being burned. As interesting as these texts can be, they didn't make it. Who decides their virtue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

I have a feeling this Sanaa text was much like the Dead sea scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi library. Squirreled away while everything else was being burned. As interesting as these texts can be, they didn't make it. Who decides their virtue?

A big difference however is that Muslims very soon established a state of their own, controlling their citizens like Christianity was not able to until Rome became Christian. For 300 years Christianity could not stop heretic writings like Islam could, and did maybe already 20 years after Muhammed died. I find it likely that the Sanaa Quran could be a copy of a Quran older than Uthmans, from before the "burnings". If so I know it would be a nightmare for conservative Muslims, but things can be said in many different ways and still mean the same. Maybe even Muhammed did when telling others what he heard the Angel say? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, iCambrian said:

We don't really know the origins of this document. What we can see are large portions of Quranic scripture, just with changes to it.

 

Something existed and was intentionally destroyed in the history of Islam. I don't think ignoring the possibilities of what this could be, does anything for our understanding of Islam.

 

The person above suggested that perhaps it was a flawed copy or flawed version of scripture that existed prior to Uthmans compilation of scripture and subsequent destruction of alternatives.

It could be lots of things, it could have been the original bible.

But the point I was making is that the text you copied implying "big changes" was the lower text, which has numerous spelling mistakes etc.

Its not the upper "final" text, which is how it was published. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres said:

A big difference however is that Muslims very soon established a state of their own, controlling their citizens like Christianity was not able to until Rome became Christian. For 300 years Christianity could not stop heretic writings like Islam could, and did maybe already 20 years after Muhammed died. I find it likely that the Sanaa Quran could be a copy of a Quran older than Uthmans, from before the "burnings". If so I know it would be a nightmare for conservative Muslims, but things can be said in many different ways and still mean the same. Maybe even Muhammed did when telling others what he heard the Angel say? 

Andres, you and your theories lol. If we take your approach, every piece of paper with arabic on it thats old, is a different quran.

I wonder if you apply the same speculation to your Bible where we dont even know who wrote what and when ! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

It could be lots of things, it could have been the original bible.

But the point I was making is that the text you copied implying "big changes" was the lower text, which has numerous spelling mistakes etc.

Its not the upper "final" text, which is how it was published. 

We'll, of course the Bible doesn't have Arabic scripture that almost matches today's Quran.

But ok. I agree that the upper text is less different than the lower text to the modern day Quran. And neither are equivelant to the final text commonly used today.

 

"I see what you did there"

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

Andres, you and your theories lol. If we take your approach, every piece of paper with arabic on it thats old, is a different quran.

I wonder if you apply the same speculation to your Bible where we dont even know who wrote what and when ! 

 

I believe that is part reason for andre's  post. 

The problem is again, similar. We can't be sure when say, the "Gospel according to Matthew" was compiled. 

Papias of Hierapolis has been named by some as the author. He may have also written the other Gospels according to..., and his other works, Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.  It's really hard to know where the notes from the Disciples were kept. During the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties any Christian text found was destroyed, as were those who hid them. Anyone keeping them could lose life or limb. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

Andres, you and your theories lol. If we take your approach, every piece of paper with arabic on it thats old, is a different quran.

I wonder if you apply the same speculation to your Bible where we dont even know who wrote what and when ! 

 

The history of the Biblical books and the Quran has some similarities. Both are written on basis of oral memories. We do not know very much about the persons that documented them, but what they wrote is rather well preserved. Corruption is not an apropiate word on any of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was planning to write out a more articulate response to the subsequent posts in this thread, but the thought experiments being undertaken on the "implications" of this document are becoming seriously irrational. Like, I understand this is virtually a Muslim members vs Christian members debate (and thus influenced by the participants' ideological biases) at this point, but you guys need to take a hard look at some of your posts over the last page and consider whether the arguments are actually likely on the balance of probabilities or simply a case of clutching at straws.

If you really want to push the viewpoint that the elimination of the Sana'a manuscript from mainstream Islamic discourse is the result of a systemic attempt to destroy 'competing' version of the Qur'an, or that this somehow a purer or more authentic version than the Uthmanic script, you also have to acknowledge the fact that this great doozy of a competitor, possibly from the lifetime of the Prophet himself, has no more than a few dozen word changes at the absolute most.

Saying that the upper text isn't "equivelant to the final text commonly used today" is a theoretically true and intellectual dishonest statement at the same time. Similarly, to say that whether there are ten changes or a thousand doesn't matter is simply illogical in a historical context. In a religious context, you are never going to be able to convince a Muslim that the Qur'an that Allah (s.w.t.) sent has been changed anyway.

Edited by Shaykh Patience101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that there is an obscure nature to the history of the Quran, in particular, regarding documents that pre date the Quran or were in use at times during the Qurans compilation. Which is understandable if people intentionally destroyed Quranic literature that didn't align with what we have today.

And saying that the upper and lower texts are not equivelant to the modern day Quran Is not intellectually dishonest, it's just telling it like it is. 17 non orthographic changes are 17 non orthographic changes. And of course the lower text contains far more.

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, iCambrian said:

We'll, of course the Bible doesn't have Arabic scripture that almost matches today's Quran.

But ok. I agree that the upper text is less different than the lower text to the modern day Quran. And neither are equivelant to the final text commonly used today.

 

"I see what you did there"

Icambrain, 

the issue with qurans from that era is that they do not have the vowel markings in so there are several ways to make the same sound/word.

An example is like colour and color. Different parts of the world have a different spelling for the same word.

We shia say there is one correct way, and we only have one quran, but there were other groups who kept different pronunciations and spellings, the famous between the "7 letters" of the sunni world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia on Sanaa Quran

"The upper text largely conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of suras; whereas the lower text contains many variations from the standard text, and the sequence of its suras corresponds to no known quranic order"

This is not a copy of Uthmans Quran. It is a slightly different version. There is nothing sensational different versions occured. The revelations occured over a long period of time and could easily have developed minor differences. Maybe Muhammed himself did not use exactly the same language when retelling the first revelation 20 years later.  

Conservative Muslims believe God protected the Quran from "variations". Conservative Christians believe God did so with the Bible. It makes little sense to me that God, if he wished to protect his word, did not do so with both the Bible and the Quran. My conlusion is that God trusted Man to write these books. They are therefore not perfect, but the differences between the variants make no difference to their messages. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the above posts. Including your statement @iraqi_shia in that it appears that the upper text is largely the same as today's text.

I also agree with Andres.  Scholars do not appear to percieve the lower text as some sort of grade school doodle book, rather the lower text does appear to be a Quranic variant. It is almost like the modern day uthmanic Quran, but not quite. Enough so that if not for the existence of Uthmans version, I suspect many non experts would have trouble percieving the differences.

But there seems to be little known about the source of the lower text, it's origins, how it was carried from person to person. There seem to be many unanswered questions about even the modern day uthmanic Quran. I think the fact that there is a history that has been intentionally destroyed, makes it difficult to understand the origins of these documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 3:01 PM, Son of Placid said:

. Who decides their virtue?

Hi SoP     Let me tell you something.

Imam Ali's life can be divided into three main parts.

Imam Ali was in his very early thirties when the Prophet died. So the first period consists of about 30-32 years.

The second period, that is, the combined length of the rule of the first three caliphates was about  24 years.

And finally, the period of his own office as caliph was 4 years and 9 months.

As every historian would agree, the first and third periods were extremely active periods of his life.

In the first period, the Prophet was always having him do things for him. Likewise, the period of his own caliphate was also very active.

But the second was relatively quiet. Officially, he didn't have a job. And the government was run by the caliphs.

However, his three predecessors often found themselves incapable of solving problems particularly of a judicial nature.

And they often sent for Imam Ali to come and help.

And in spite of what they had done to him, as a man who bore no grudges, Imam Ali always offered his advice and help.

Caliph Umar is reported to have acknowledged  the noble Imam Imam's immense help by admitting that "if Ali was not there, he (Umar) would have been destroyed.

Anyway, why did I tell you all this?

You see, it is common knowledge at least among Shias that during the second period of his life, which was one of lesser activity than the other two, Imam Ali had compiled his own version of the Quran, perhaps with some explanatory notes.

After completion, according to some reports, he had offered his write-up to his predecessors, but they were happy to stick to their own.

Imam Ali was not the person to have things lying around. That along with several other reasons seem to indicate that the Sanaa Quran cannot be the one he had compiled.

He is believed to have passed his own version to his sons and it still is presumably with his family.

You might ask why he did not have the existing Quran replaced by his own when he became caliph.

Well, no one knows the precise answer but you see, his caliphate was one of great upheaval.

First, one of the Prophet's widows declared war on him, then he had to deal with a rival caliph Muawiya, and also fight a stalemate battle with him and finally, quell the uprising of the Khwarijis.

So in all probability, replacing the existing Quran by his own would have caused another rebellion.

However, there is reason to believe that if the existing Quran, which is the same as the one we have now, was flawed, there would have been some indication from him, to that effect.

As a man of extreme righteousness, Imam Ali would not have worried about a rebellion, if that was the case and he would have pointed it out.

Every Shia and Sunni acknowledges that Imam Ali knew the Quran, not only, by heart, but he knew the exact meaning of every word, every phrase and every sentence.

The fact that he left the existing Quran, which has come down to us,as it was, is sufficient evidence that we do not need to be particularly distracted by cave findings, as these will probably keep happening.

It may be true that the existing Quran is not exactly the same as the one he had compiled but to all intents and purposes, it is good enough.

As we all know, it is not chronological  which makes understanding difficult than would otherwise have been but apart from that, if it there were other flaws, despite opposition from the general public, Imam Ali would not have kept us in the dark.

Therefore, we find no reason to believe that these cave findings represent any serious to the version that we have.

All these unnecessary speculations that it is older are really without foundation .

I have stated above that if the current Quran was flawed, Imam Ali would not have kept us in the dark. 

And while you have have sufficient knowledge of his character to accept that statement, not everyone  would.

To support my assertion, I am therefore  giving below some endorsements of his character from well-known Western scholars:

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

Lesley Hazleton "After the Prophet"

(a) As the early Islamic historians told the story of his brief rule, it would achieve the epic dimensions of classical tragedy. The story they told was that of a noble leader brought low by his own nobility. Of a man of integrity undone by his reluctance to compromise his principles. Of a ruler betrayed as much by the inconstancy of his supporters as by the malice of his enemies.

(b) Ali refused to take up residence in the former governor’s mansion . . . Instead, he made his headquarters in a modest mud-brick house alongside the mosque. There would be no more green-marbled palaces, no more favoritism of cronies and kin, no more profiteering at public expense, he declared.He would restore the rule of righteousness, and the Kufans loved him for it.

(c) Ali would rarely be anything but noble. His highest virtue, it would also prove to be his greatest liability.

(d) Ali had worked as a manual laborer, hauling stones and water, an image that was to establish him as the champion of working people.

(d) When Ali refused to make sweetheart deals with the nobility, he paid dearly.

(e) In the blinding light of hindsight, Ali should surely have been more assertive and insisted on his right to rule. But then he would not have been the man he was, the man famed for his nobility, his grace and integrity – a man too honorable, it seemed, for the rough-and-tumble of politics.

Barnaby Rogerson "The Heirs of Muhammad"

(a) Ali was a cornucopia of the virtues.

(b) Ali possessed a profound nobility that could also be considered foolishness. His refusal to play the dirty game of tribal power politics . . . is part of the real beauty of the man, for Ali is testimony to the fact that the most beautiful ideals must perish in the sordid world of human politics. Ali chose the road of suffering rather than compromise . . . The man who would pursue the noble cause wherever and against whomever it led him . . . and who never aspired to more money than was required to maintain a roof over his head, for clothes to shield his body and food enough to share with whomever was in need.

(c) Ali had always attracted his share of enemies because of his forthright regard for the truth. There was something in his saintly nature that either kindled passionate support or an almost equal fear.

(d) The ever-harsher political landscape did not change Ali’s total commitment to good government. His demand to see all the figures, accounts, exact sources of revenue and expenditure from his cousin’s government of Basra led him to dismiss Abdallah ibn Abbas . . . from this post. Ali asserted that neither he, the Caliph, nor Abbas the governor was due more reward than was paid out to any other Muslim.

(e) To earn his daily bread Ali worked at the well-heads, hauling up leather buckets of water in exchange for dates – a job that was usually performed by beasts of burden or slaves . . . Stories survive of Ali cutting out the foundations for the walls and later working as a hod-carrier, ferrying loads of mud bricks to the skilled masons.

(f) With every passing day his personal virtues became ever more blindingly obvious: his complete honesty, his unbending devotion to the true practice of Islam, his innate fairness, compassion and generosity. He could honestly claim to know the message and practice of the Prophet better than any other man.

(g) Ali, the linchpin of the whole tale of the Heirs of the Prophet, is a figure crafted from the purest principles of honor, truth, bravery and faith. Like all such men, he was not fated to prosper in our venal world, ridden with secret ambitions, private fears and covert jealousies.  

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunni sources consider the second stage of the compilation of the Holy Quran in the third caliphate period. Al-Hazyfe Yamani, along with the Islamist group consisting of Iraqi and Shaam (Syrian) Muslims, set out to fight the Armenian land (Armenia). He then noticed the difference in Muslim recitation, each of them was reciting  by way one of  companions. So he went back to Osman on his return from battle and asked help. Najari,  tells the story of him with the third caliph: "Huzaife feared and disturbed by the differences in recitations of the Muslims in the Qur'anic recitation. So he went to Othman and said to him: O my beloved Amir, you will find the people of the Ummah before they will disagree like the Jews and Christians in their scripture. So Uthman sent a person to Hafsa to give him a copy of Abu Bakr's scripture that he had written in his time, and then he would return it to him. Hafsha accepted, and after that, Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Sabit, Abdullah ibn Zubair, Sa'id ibn Aass, and Abdul Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham to make copies of the above mentioned works. Uthman said to them: whenever there are differences between the three of you, Gharishi and Zayd bin Sabit happend, in the recitation of the scripture, write the disagreement in the language of the Qur'ishis; Because the Qur'an has been revealed in their language. So they did so until the copying process was finished. He then returned to Mushaf to Hafsha and ordered each of his friends and relatives to send a copy of the book they had written and burn all the other inscriptions and other writings written by the Qur'an to none Do not make a difference in the Qur'an and all Muslims agree on a Qur'an. [17]
From these traditions, the new compilation of the Quran is not obtained; But what is used is that the Caliphs put it in a version that is attended by all Muslims in order to preserve the Quran that was written at the time of the Prophet.

[15] البيان، آيت الله خويى، ص 257، منشورات انوار الهدى.
[16] سوره توبه، آيه 128.
[17] همان، ج 6، ص 583.

17. AlBayan ,Ayatollah khoei  , Manshurat  Anwar'Al 'Huda v6 p 583

http://www.askdin.com/showthread.php?t=6

 

What is said in the sources of Shi'ite narratives in this regard is that Ali (as) has confirmed the principle of harmonization of measures, but the burning of moshafs is not only not approved by the him, It was followed by the great criticism and protest of the Imam, in that on that day, Hazrat addressed Abuzar: "Today, in the Islamic world, a great incident has taken place, and the Book of Almighty is so burnt and it is so. That Allah Almighty will rule the Fire over those who have treated this Book with this action. "[4]

طوسي محمد بن الحسن؛ اختيار معرفة الرجال، مشهد، دانشكده الهيات و معارف، 1348، ص 25.

4. Tusi Muhammad ibn alHasan , Ekhtiar Marifat'Alrijal ,Mashhad ,School of Theology and Education ,1348 sun calendar , p25

http://andisheqom.com/fa/question/view/22/آيا-آتش-زدن-قرآن‎ها-توسط-عثمان--واقعيت-دارد؟

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunni sources consider the second stage of the compilation of the Holy Quran in the third caliphate period. Al-Hazyfe Yamani, along with the Islamist group consisting of Iraqi and Shaam (Syrian) Muslims, set out to fight the Armenian land (Armenia). He then noticed the difference in Muslim recitation, each of them was reciting  by way one of  companions. So he went back to Osman on his return from battle and asked help. Najari,  tells the story of him with the third caliph: "Huzaife feared and disturbed by the differences in recitations of the Muslims in the Qur'anic recitation. So he went to Othman and said to him: O my beloved Amir, you will find the people of the Ummah before they will disagree like the Jews and Christians in their scripture. So Uthman sent a person to Hafsa to give him a copy of Abu Bakr's scripture that he had written in his time, and then he would return it to him. Hafsha accepted, and after that, Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Sabit, Abdullah ibn Zubair, Sa'id ibn Aass, and Abdul Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham to make copies of the above mentioned works. Uthman said to them: whenever there are differences between the three of you, Gharishi and Zayd bin Sabit happend, in the recitation of the scripture, write the disagreement in the language of the Qur'ishis; Because the Qur'an has been revealed in their language. So they did so until the copying process was finished. He then returned to Mushaf to Hafsha and ordered each of his friends and relatives to send a copy of the book they had written and burn all the other inscriptions and other writings written by the Qur'an to none Do not make a difference in the Qur'an and all Muslims agree on a Qur'an. [17]
From these traditions, the new compilation of the Quran is not obtained; But what is used is that the Caliphs put it in a version that is attended by all Muslims in order to preserve the Quran that was written at the time of the Prophet.

[15] البيان، آيت الله خويى، ص 257، منشورات انوار الهدى.
[16] سوره توبه، آيه 128.
[17] همان، ج 6، ص 583.

17. AlBayan ,Ayatollah khoei  , Manshurat  Anwar'Al 'Huda v6 p 583

http://www.askdin.com/showthread.php?t=6

 

What is said in the sources of Shi'ite narratives in this regard is that Ali (as) has confirmed the principle of harmonization of measures, but the burning of moshafs is not only not approved by the him, It was followed by the great criticism and protest of the Imam, in that on that day, Hazrat addressed Abuzar: "Today, in the Islamic world, a great incident has taken place, and the Book of Almighty is so burnt and it is so. That Allah Almighty will rule the Fire over those who have treated this Book with this action. "[4]

طوسي محمد بن الحسن؛ اختيار معرفة الرجال، مشهد، دانشكده الهيات و معارف، 1348، ص 25.

4. Tusi Muhammad ibn alHasan , Ekhtiar Marifat'Alrijal ,Mashhad ,School of Theology and Education ,1348 sun calendar , p25

http://andisheqom.com/fa/question/view/22/آيا-آتش-زدن-قرآن‎ها-توسط-عثمان--واقعيت-دارد؟

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunni sources consider the second stage of the compilation of the Holy Quran in the third caliphate period. Al-Hazyfe Yamani, along with the Islamist group consisting of Iraqi and Shaam (Syrian) Muslims, set out to fight the Armenian land (Armenia). He then noticed the difference in Muslim recitation, each of them was reciting  by way one of  companions. So he went back to Osman on his return from battle and asked help. Najari,  tells the story of him with the third caliph: "Huzaife feared and disturbed by the differences in recitations of the Muslims in the Qur'anic recitation. So he went to Othman and said to him: O my beloved Amir, you will find the people of the Ummah before they will disagree like the Jews and Christians in their scripture. So Uthman sent a person to Hafsa to give him a copy of Abu Bakr's scripture that he had written in his time, and then he would return it to him. Hafsha accepted, and after that, Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Sabit, Abdullah ibn Zubair, Sa'id ibn Aass, and Abdul Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham to make copies of the above mentioned works. Uthman said to them: whenever there are differences between the three of you, Gharishi and Zayd bin Sabit happend, in the recitation of the scripture, write the disagreement in the language of the Qur'ishis; Because the Qur'an has been revealed in their language. So they did so until the copying process was finished. He then returned to Mushaf to Hafsha and ordered each of his friends and relatives to send a copy of the book they had written and burn all the other inscriptions and other writings written by the Qur'an to none Do not make a difference in the Qur'an and all Muslims agree on a Qur'an. [17]
From these traditions, the new compilation of the Quran is not obtained; But what is used is that the Caliphs put it in a version that is attended by all Muslims in order to preserve the Quran that was written at the time of the Prophet.

[15] البيان، آيت الله خويى، ص 257، منشورات انوار الهدى.
[16] سوره توبه، آيه 128.
[17] همان، ج 6، ص 583.

17. AlBayan ,Ayatollah khoei  , Manshurat  Anwar'Al 'Huda v6 p 583

http://www.askdin.com/showthread.php?t=6

 

What is said in the sources of Shi'ite narratives in this regard is that Ali (as) has confirmed the principle of harmonization of measures, but the burning of moshafs is not only not approved by the him, It was followed by the great criticism and protest of the Imam, in that on that day, Hazrat addressed Abuzar: "Today, in the Islamic world, a great incident has taken place, and the Book of Almighty is so burnt and it is so. That Allah Almighty will rule the Fire over those who have treated this Book with this action. "[4]

طوسي محمد بن الحسن؛ اختيار معرفة الرجال، مشهد، دانشكده الهيات و معارف، 1348، ص 25.

4. Tusi Muhammad ibn alHasan , Ekhtiar Marifat'Alrijal ,Mashhad ,School of Theology and Education ,1348 sun calendar , p25

http://andisheqom.com/fa/question/view/22/آيا-آتش-زدن-قرآن‎ها-توسط-عثمان--واقعيت-دارد؟

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, iCambrian said:

I think the fact that there is a history that has been intentionally destroyed, makes it difficult to understand the origins of these documents.

Very true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Scholars do not appear to percieve the lower text as some sort of grade school doodle book, rather the lower text does appear to be a Quranic variant.

This is simply false.

You can believe it if you want, but factually its incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...