academic method and the Qur'an

[bananabrain]

i think this is a very interesting piece. although it was originally written about ten years ago, the issues it raises will be ongoing.

The World of the Quran

i would be very interested to hear the responses of our muslim members to this piece, whatever they are. the sacred texts of the jews and christians have long had to deal with the challenges posed by academic study and i would find it instructive to see what muslims can learn from a similar challenge.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Dream]

Wow that was really long.

 

[c0de]

i would find it instructive to see what muslims can learn from a similar challenge.

... not really much of a "challenge"... but ok. There is a reason why the academics were never impressed with Puin's theories: it is already known that the textual variations in early manuscripts of the Quran are due to regional oral traditions and dialects that were not standardized until later.

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"Jones admits there have been "trifling" changes made to the Uthmanic recension. Khalidi says 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. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]He believes that the Sa'na 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." [/FONT]

Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search

Everything else Puin says is just opinion. The only interesting part of the article for me was the resurgence of Mutazillite philosophy in Islamic studies that it chronicled. The end of islam thread refers to that, exactly.

 

[Amica]

Peace

Well, I have not seen any examples of the alleged 'differences' between those parchments and the Uthmanic 'version' of the Qur'an. Usually, when people allege that the version of the Qur'an we have today is not the same as the one during the Prophet's pbuh time, concrete proof lacks.

Also, one needs to keep in mind that right after Prophet pbuh death Muslims were in a civil war which caused many to attempt to alter their own understanding of the Qur'an and Islam. The main split was Shia and Sunni, and who is not to say that those desiring to separate themselves from the main body of Muslims that they did not wish to change their own versions of Qur'an that they may have had (if they did). Plus, the Holy Qur'an continually mentions hypocrates (spelling?) and who is not to say that they secretely worked on changing certain Qur'anic verses.

Hafiz are people who memorize the whole of the Qur'an. There are even children who become hafiz. It comes natural that when Uthman attempted to wipe out any potential hersey about the Qur'an, that he would gather people among the hafiz, people who others respected and who could be considered best among the people, to work on separating true verses in Arabic.

 

[iBrian]

It comes natural that when Uthman attempted to wipe out any potential hersey about the Qur'an, that he would gather people among the hafiz, people who others respected and who could be considered best among the people, to work on separating true verses in Arabic.

The trouble is didn't Uthman have a political dimension, obviously, in leading Islam forward?

In which case, I always find it incredible that the man is never attributed with human flaws enough to subvert anything to his own will. I guess doing so potentially invalidates Islam, and therefore cannot be considered without directly questioning the validity of the faith, which I would feel is an unfair step to take.

2c.

 

[Friend]

slaaaaaam

I understand the intent of this topic

There is a difference between the fact that the Quran is clear and simple for those who speak Arabic .. And it is simple for those whom try to understand the arabic language .


The Orientalists who tried to find differences between the version which found in Sanaa in 1972 and other Quranic's versions couldn't understand that punctuation and composition symbols came to show how the Arabic letters pronounce correctly so as not to be affected by changing the Accents from time to time .. it does not mean that the Quran is different or the texts were changed ,,, but the earlier version of Quran didn't have Punctuation or formation symbols like what we have now.

see this Samples of earlier versions quran or arabic text without punctuation

and this after punctuation method

Now we come to the important

Since the Qur'an revealed to the Prophet peace be upon him is preserved orally among Muslims ... And memorize the Quran by heart is known to Muslims, young and old ..

If one person made mistake in any attempt to write the text of the Koran because of his weakness in Writing Skills does not mean that all scriptures is reduced in this manuscript or version ... As the Quran since coming to the Prophet is preserved and Memorize orally and in writing with a lot of Muslims ,,

Quran documented and published so as not to give any chances to distorted by any one.. although distorted intentionally or unintentionally is easy to detect, even if they hide that .. then emerged after hundreds of years.




It is unacceptable and unreasonable that only one old version of Quran will be the only reference of it ,while in the Islamic history there weren't a period of time in which the codification and documentation and conservation of Quran was lost .

It's like a Series without broken

 

[c0de]

The trouble is didn't Uthman have a political dimension, obviously, in leading Islam forward?

In which case, I always find it incredible that the man is never attributed with human flaws enough to subvert anything to his own will. I guess doing so potentially invalidates Islam, and therefore cannot be considered without directly questioning the validity of the faith, which I would feel is an unfair step to take.

(lolz, "unfair step" eh?)

Did you consider that maybe no one has posed this question (academically) before is because no real EVIDENCE exists to posit such a consideration? Do you, for example, have any actual proof that Uthman (ra) tried to "subvert" anything?

 

[nativeastral]

surely being a Caliph, however 'rightly guided', in being the nature of a warlord would by neccessity have to somehow subvert 'someone' in his career?

I agree Friend, it is much more of an unbroken series compared to the longer time period of literature/oral transmissions/translations of others; its always more the secondary sources that cause conflicts in interpretations and questions of authenticity.
Still, like the others there are countless variations on the theme, one big happy family!

 

[iBrian]

Did you consider that maybe no one has posed this question (academically) before is because no real EVIDENCE exists to posit such a consideration? Do you, for example, have any actual proof that Uthman (ra) tried to "subvert" anything?

None at all - I just find it somewhat incredible that someone who is effectively a politician can also be seen to be flawlessly righteous over an issue that could easily have been exploited for propaganda purposes.

But I guess it would be impossible for Muslims to question the role of Uthman in the formation of the Quran, because if the conclusion is that indeed he spun the result, then that would forcibly undermine the Muslim's faith in doing so.

Simply a thought.

 

[c0de]

.
@ Native + Brian

This thread is discussing the ACADEMIC method. So once again, do you have any EVIDENCE to suggest that the Quran that Uthman (ra) codified is not the exact same as was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) ??

Ante up or call it a day folks...

 

[Saltmeister]

So once again, do you have any EVIDENCE to suggest that the Quran that Uthman (ra) codified is not the exact same as was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) ??

Does anyone have a tape recording of Mohammed?

Did any historians record the life and sayings of Mohammed?

Actually, based on the little information I have gathered on Islam and Mohammed, it would be pretty hard to prove either way.

How about the hadiths?

 

[Tao_Equus]

.
@ Native + Brian

This thread is discussing the ACADEMIC method. So once again, do you have any EVIDENCE to suggest that the Quran that Uthman (ra) codified is not the exact same as was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) ??

Ante up or call it a day folks...

Bollox. Show me the copy of the koran from prior to Uthman so that we can compare then your clever but fraudulent question might have some weight. Its like saying science cannot disprove god. Utterly convincing as a question to the dissonant with that investment in their particular paradigm. But fatuous and completely devoid of relevance to anyone with neutrality and common sense.
Under Uthman the Muslim empire grew at its fastest pace ever and it did so by the sword. He was 10 times the empire builder Muhammad could ever hope to be. That such a man was above corrupting the dispirate rantings of a delusional megalomaniac to his own ends is farcical. Without Uthman there is no Islam. He is far, far more important a figure in the factual development of Islam than Muhammad. He is its creator. You are just in so close you cannot see the wood for the trees.
You want to hear about someone who really believes in angels try here..
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rG4XiqvDX9Y&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rG4XiqvDX9Y&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[c0de]

.

Salty + Tao


@ Salty

You do not need "tapes" of Muhammad (pbuh) to make your case. All you need is a single valid historical document (even a rumor) to back up the claim. The Old and New Testaments have entire bands of scholars questioning their authenticity. But no one has questioned the Quran's authenticity for a very simple reason: the people who saw it codified were ALIVE during the prophet's own time!

Just think about how ridiculous the claim itself is: if there was a HUGE conspiracy involving every single one of the companions of the prophet, (including all the people who had the Quran memorized) and they all decided to accept Uthman's (ra) version, don't you think there would have been at least a rumor of a conspiracy like this? Find me even a single document or record of any kind and we can discuss it. This is why no scholarly debate goes on over this issue.


@ Tao

Under Uthman the Muslim empire grew at its fastest pace ever and it did so by the sword. He was 10 times the empire builder Muhammad could ever hope to be. That such a man was above corrupting the dispirate rantings of a delusional megalomaniac to his own ends is farcical. Without Uthman there is no Islam. He is far, far more important a figure in the factual development of Islam than Muhammad. He is its creator.

Your insight into history is even less insightful then your rantings on science. Explain to me how the Arabs under Uthman (ra) would have defeated the aggressive empires of Byzantium and Persia had they not first been unified under Muhammad (pbuh), or reunified under Abu Bakr (ra)?

Also explain to me why you are crediting the defensive military victories of the Caliphate to Uthman (ra) when the general in charge for the most part was Khalid bin Walid? If Islam was spread "by the sword" (as you claim) then shouldnt the person holding the sword get the credit?

I could dissect your (amusing) arguments further... but I'm sure you have already suffered enough embarrassment on this issue many times in the past.

But if you wan't a little refresher, be my guest

You are just in so close you cannot see the wood for the trees.

lolz... i think you mean I cant see the FOREST for the trees there bud ;-) The point of that saying is that when you are too close to the forest all you see is the wood of the trees and fail to get the bigger picture, i.e. the forest. (if you need any more help with common phrases PM me, k?)

 

[iBrian]

.This thread is discussing the ACADEMIC method.

Apologies, yes, I'm derailing bb's thread and will step out.

.
Explain to me how the Arabs under Uthman (ra) would have defeated the aggressive empires of Byzantium and Persia had they not first been unified under Muhammad (pbuh), or reunified under Abu Bakr (ra)?

A quick pointer here is both the Byzantines and Persians were exhausted at the time, and Islam filled the power vacuum that existed.

 

[c0de]

A quick pointer here is both the Byzantines and Persians were exhausted at the time, and Islam filled the power vacuum that existed.

That does not help Tao's argument. The point is that the power vacuum wouldnt have been filled, unless there was someone there to fill it. And the Arab tribes were NOT united by Uthman (ra).

 

[Tao_Equus]

lmao @ c0de. If you are going to attempt (and fail) to use pedantry to try and deflect from the obvious, that you have nothing to work with but some 3rd rate Islamic propaganda, you really have fallen off the wagon in your absence. I may get round to humouring you later if I get bored.

 

[c0de]

lmao @ c0de. If you are going to attempt (and fail) to use pedantry to try and deflect from the obvious, that you have nothing to work with but some 3rd rate Islamic propaganda, you really have fallen off the wagon in your absence. I may get round to humouring you later if I get bored.I may get round to humouring you later if I get bored.

Rrrrite. Allow me to translate what you just wrote into what it actually means:

"I can't actually defend my own argument against your rebuttal,
but watch me type an entire paragraph to make it seem like I can"

Thanks 4 playin' Tao. Better luck next time ; )

 

[iBrian]

Ok, let's try to get back to bb's post, please - would rather we focus on the intelligent discussion originally invited.

 

[Amica]

Peace again/salaam--

I think the only relevant academic issue is the fact that the islamic scholars/interpreters of Islamic laws might have a more difficult time making personal interpretations of the Qur'anic verses. If anything, now that the earlier copies/parchments were discovered, it would prevent people for making their own unreasonable interpretations--this should help Muslims clarify some of our own understandings about the Noble Qur'an.

Reason I say the proof of Qur'an 'being different' is not there is that no non-Muslim investigator provides any example to their threatening claims that Islam and Muslims would be shaken to the the core if the revelations of the parchments are revealed. At the same time, they claim they are not allowed to view the parchments. So, who is lying or hiding stuff here?

 

[Mahmoud]

i would be very interested to hear the responses of our muslim members to this piece, whatever they are. the sacred texts of the jews and christians have long had to deal with the challenges posed by academic study and i would find it instructive to see what muslims can learn from a similar challenge.

I am in full agreement with this article. We cannot live in the past. We must move our thinking to the present and think about the future.

Lets take a look at the concluding paragraph:

With the diversity of interpretations will surely come increased fractiousness, perhaps intensified by the fact that Islam now exists in such a great variety of social and intellectual settings—Bosnia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United States, and so on. More than ever before, anybody wishing to understand global affairs will need to understand Islamic civilization, in all its permutations. Surely the best way to start is with the study of the Koran—which promises in the years ahead to be at least as contentious, fascinating, and important as the study of the Bible has been in this century.

It takes studying great minds like Al Ghazali, Avicenna, Averros, and Al Farabi. These great minds are linked to the Greeks, including Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps we should explore this link.