Free Minds

Science / History / Prophecy => Archeology & History => Topic started by: maxq on November 23, 2006, 10:47:16 AM

Title: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: maxq on November 23, 2006, 10:47:16 AM
DISCLAIMER

Although I have researched this topic and formulated a hypothesis that can be backed by evidence, this is analysis and opinion of a single individual...

I am only human and am prone to mistakes in judgement. It is better if the reader verifies the information I am presenting. I would be glad if someone corrects me if I have made a mistake.

********************************

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF A COMPLETE PRE-UTHMANIC QURANIC MANUSCRIPT

We have observed through previous discussions on this forum that Sabaic and Egyptian languages were written in two distinct forms: Monumental, and Papyric.

We saw that Ancient Egyptian writing was of two types:

Hieroglyph -> Monument
Hieratic -> Parchment/Papyrus

Same pattern is observed in Sabaic language:

Musnad -> Monument
Zabur -> Parchment/Papyrus

Now when it comes to Arabic, the general scientific and archaeological analysis concludes that Arabic originated from Nabataean regions. Several inscriptions have been found in Petra and other parts of the Jordanian desert that point to this. It is possible that North Arabian regions used Nabataean for both monuments and papyrus, *but the area of Hijaz exhibits the Sabaic and Egyptian trend*.

Kufic script is extremely similar to the Nabataean styled alphabet, which was used for monumental messages in Pre-Islamic Arabia (and after).

What is interesting is that NONE of the parchment Quranic manuscripts (or portions discovered thereof) are in this script until the Uthmanian Caliphate. In fact, Quranic manuscript fragments found that can be dated to the first half of the 1st century Hijri are Hijazi:

Hijazi - Parchment
******
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/yem1b.html (*begining* of 1st C-H)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/yem1e.html (1st half of 1st C-H)

Kufic - Parchment
*****
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html (disagreement in date of origin - *Canbon dated to 2nd C-H*)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html (1st C-H - likely later in the century, but this is deductive reasoning on my behalf, so I could be wrong)

Kufic - Monumental
*****
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid1.html (4th year Hijri)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid2.html (4th year Hijri)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid3.html (Early 1st C-H)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/kuficsaud.html (24th year Hijri)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hajri.html (31st year Hijri)

We see a distinct pattern: All Stone inscriptions discovered in the Hijaz area are in Kufic, HOWEVER, the oldest Quranic parchment pieces discovered show a different style which is Italic Hijazi. Several of these samples show diacritical dots as well.

We already know that Nabataens were renowned for their stone-carved monuments. Owing to the pattern we saw for south Semitic and Egyptian writing habits, it is likely that Hijaz followed a similar trend of using Hijazi font for parchment and daily affairs documents, and Kufic for stone engravings.

While Hijazi was popular for parchment, Kufic may have been introduced for writing parchment documents during Hazrat Uthman's time, and thereon heavily used for documents (while Hijazi lost its popularity).

Hence we can derive 2 conclusions:

(1)
In Pre-Islamic Arabia and for the early part of the 1st Century Hijri, the people of Hijaz were probably using two types of fonts:

Kufic -> Monumental
Hijazi -> Parchment/Papyrus

(2)
Most of the dating regarding kufic manuscripts is a matter of disagreement between scholars. Where there is no disagreement is that Kufic script is present in all Uthmanian copies surviving to date.

In addition, there is no disagreement with regards to the use of Kufic script on stones/monuments and Hijazi on papyrus in the beginning of the 1st Century Hijri.

Hence, in my opinion, presence of Quranic parchment/papyrus fragments in Hijazi script is historical and archaeological evidence that points to the existence of *COMPILED* Quranic manuscripts from before Harzat Uthman's time.

-----

Whether it points to the fact that Hijazi script did not actually did not originate from Hijaz, and that North Arabian regions were using Kufic for monument and Hijazi for parchment exclusively is something I have not found any clear evidence for.

What can be deduced is that traditional stories about the collection and compilation of the Quran during Hazrat Uthman's time are a bit far fetched. Parchment pages (that seem to be torn off a book) are found with Quranic verses which indicate that Quran was written in book format in Hijazi script in early 1st Century Hijri. Kufic seems to have been used for parchment quite after, likely during or after the 3rd Caliph's time.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Haroon on February 27, 2007, 05:44:43 AM
this is interesting and i'm stunned that no one has posted a reply.

Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: /*JM*/ on February 27, 2007, 05:53:55 AM
See
http://free-minds.org/books/wadud_05.htm
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation3.htm

peace
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Haroon on March 06, 2007, 04:09:11 AM
this is intriguing.

i have often believed there must have been pre-uthmanic scripts of the Quran.

The Quran points to it too.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: /*JM*/ on September 24, 2007, 09:19:51 AM

Hence, in my opinion, presence of Quranic parchment/papyrus fragments in Hijazi script is historical and archaeological evidence that points to the existence of *COMPILED* Quranic manuscripts from before Harzat Uthman's time.


Hello,

Could you explain that sentence ?

Peace
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: hafeez kazi on September 25, 2007, 01:16:46 PM
sALAAM TO ALL


THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN

We Muslims believe that the Quran which was revealed in slow and gradual stages, was compiled in the book form with the sequence of the verses maintained, as revealed, before the death of the Prophet. However there was a conspiracy among the non-Muslims to propagate the belief that the Quran was not in the book form when Prophet departed but was compiled later, through the efforts of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, Hazrat Umar ibn Khattab, Usman bin Affan and Zaid bin Shabit. We also believe that the Torah and the Bible are the revelations of God but was corrupted and made impure by the interference of human beings and we can no longer believe in its authenticity and sacredness. Conviction is the foundation of system and upon which the structure of the system is built. If there is a slight tilt in the foundation, then the whole structure, which was standing straight, will crumble and collapse. Since the non-Muslims could not manipulate the Quran as it is well guarded by God, they applied a wicked scheme by fabricating and amalgamating hadith and attributing to Prophet. If the revealed Quran was not compiled in the book form by the Prophet, but was later compiled, gives rise to suspicion whether we have a pure Quran as was revealed to Prophet or an adulterated one. Now it must be seriously considered that if we have the slightest doubt about this book, then for that individual, Quran will not remain the source of Deen at all. It will have the same status as that of previous holy books of Torah and Bible.

For the sake of reference, one is invited to read Hafiz Abu Bakr Abdullah ibne abi Dawood
Sulaiman ibne Asha'ee Sajastani's famous work entitled 'KITAB UL MASAHIF?,' that carries much significance in this matter. In this book, all the traditions linked with Quran are classified in a separate chapter. The same traditions are found scattered in other Hadith books. Abu Bakr ibne Abdullah abi Dawood was born in hijra 230 and died in hijra 312. He was the son of one of the famous six Hadith narrators, Imam Abu Dawood Sulaiman ibn Asha'ee Sajastani and whose famous book is part of' Sahaa Sita.' Consequently the book 'KITAB UL MASAHIF,' is taken as one of the authentic books of Hadith. Imam Ibnul Jazre called him 'the most trustworthy.' In Baghdad he was known as 'Imam ul Iraq,' in the elite and in public he was looked upon with great honor and respect. The Sultan of those days had erected a throne for him in the mosque of Baghdad. He sat on this throne and narrated the ahadith. The sages of Iraq took from his ahadith, but no one was able to reach his status. Let us examine some ahadith from the famous 'KITAB UL MASAHIF.'

This particular conspiracy against the Quran by the non-Muslims is very unfortunate indeed but fortunately the Quran itself stands as a witness against it and is sufficient by itself to explode the myth of this conspiracy Still more unfortunate is the fact that our Mullas and Scholars are holding these traditions as a sacred trust. When it is said that such traditions cannot form part of the basis of our 'Deen' because they were not given to Muslims by the Prophet, in the form of a safely compiled book, the reply comes from Mullas and Scholars that the same is the case with the Quran, so that the Ahadis and the Quran are at par with each other as far as their safety and integrity is concerned. But, on the other hand, the verses of the Quran are so explicit, so logical and so dynamic that no argument by Mulla or anybody else can stand against it.

TO MOSES, GOD REVEALED THE TORAH, WHICH THEY WROTE ON SHEET OF PAPERS.

WA- MAA QADARO 'ALLAAH H.AQQ QADR -HI 'IDH QAALO MAA ANZALA 'ALLAAH cALAA BASHAR MIN SHAY' QUL MAN ANZALA AL- KITAAB 'ALLADHE JAA'A BI- -HI MOSAA NOR(AN) WA- HUDA(N) LI- AN- NAAS TAJcALON -HU QARAAT.ES TUBDON -HAA WA- TUKHFON KATHER(AN) WA- cULLIMTUM MAA LAM TAcLAMO 'ANTUM WA- LAA 'AABAA' -KUM QUL 'ALLAAH THUMMA DHAR -HUM FE KHAWD. -HIM YALcABON 6:91

And they measure not the power of GODits true measure when they say: GODhath naught revealed unto a human being. Say (unto the Jews who speak thus): Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for mankind, which ye have put on SHEET OF PAPERS which ye show, but ye hide much (thereof), and by which ye were taught that which ye knew not yourselves nor (did) your fathers (know it)? Say: Allah. Then leave them to their play of cavilling. 6:91

QURAN WAS NOT REVEALED ON SHEET OF PAPERS.

WA- LAW NAZZALNAA cALAY -KA KITAAB(AN) FE QIRT.AAS FA- LAMASO -HU BI- AYDE -HIM LA- QAALA 'ALLADHENA KAFARO 'IN HAADHAA 'ILLAA SIH.R MUBEN 6:7

QIRTAAS    =     paper  sheet of paper

If We had sent unto thee a written (Message) on a SHEET OF PAPERS so that they could touch it with their hands the unbelievers would have been sure to say: "This is nothing but obvious magic!" 6:7

QURAN A BOOK WRITTEN / DRAFTED / COMPOSED BY GOD

WA- KITAAB MAST.OR 52:2

SATAR       to write (down)  to compose  draw up  draft  سَطَرَ  to rule  line  draw lines   to streak  stripe  bar

And by the BOOK WRITTEN /DRAFTED / COMPOSED. 52:2

QURAN WAS PUBLISHED IN PARCHMENT / ROLL.

FE RAQQ MANSHOR 52:3

MANSHUR   =   unrolled stretched out leaflet  pamphlet  circular prospectus, outspread published opened  emitted released catalogue  flier  publication    prism

RAQQ           =    parchment roll

In a PUBLISHED PARCHMENT / roll. 52:3

QURAN WAS INSCRIBED ON TABLET SIMILAR TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

And when the anger of Musa (Moses) was appeased, he took up the TABLETS, and in their inscription was guidance and mercy for those who fear their Lord. 7:154

Nay this is a Glorious Qur'an  85:21
BAL HUWA QUR'AAN MAJED 85:21

(Inscribed) in a TABLET Preserved! 85:22
FE LAWH. MAH.FOZ. 85:22

QURAN (READING) IN A WELL PROTECTED BOOK.

'INNA -HU LA- QUR'AAN KAREM 56:77
FE KITAAB MAKNON 56:78

‏MAKNON    =   hidden concealed well-kept cherished  covered  harbored sheltered

harbored  =  protected

That this is indeed a Qur'an (reading) most honorable 56:77
In a BOOK protected 56:78

QURAN WAS WRITTEN ON PAGES / PARCHMENT  / BY SAHAABAAS DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE PROPHET.

KALLAA 'INNA -HAA TADHKIRAH. FA- MAN SHAA'A DHAKARA ?HU. FE S.UH.UF MUKARRAMAH. MARFOcAH MUT.AHHARAH. BI- AYDE SAFARAH. KIRAAM BARARAH. 80:11/12/13/14/15/16

SAFAHA   =      page  sheet  leaf surface  face

SAFARAH = Scribes

Nay, (do not do like this), indeed it (these Verses of this Qur'an) are an admonition, Therefore let who will keep it in remembrance. On honored PAGES. Exalted, purified, (Written) by the hands of scribes. Noble and righteous. 80: 11/12/13/14/15/16

GOD REVEALED THE VERSES WELL ARRANGED AND IN STAGES.

WA- QUR?AAN (AN) FARAQNAA -HU LI- TAQRA' -HU ?ALAA AN- NAAS ?ALAA MUKTH WA- NAZZALNAA -HU TANZEL (AN) 17:106

And (it is) a Qur?an, which We have divided (into parts), in order that you might recite it to men at intervals. And We have revealed it by STAGES. 17:106

'IN(NA) -NAA NAH.NU NAZZALNAA ?ALAY -KA AL- QUR'AAN TANZEL(AN) 76:23
It is We Who have sent down the Qur'an to thee by STAGES. 76:23

WA- QAALA 'ALLADHENA KAFARO LAW-LAA NUZZILA ?ALAY -HI AL- QUR'AAN JUMLAH WAAH.IDAH KA- DHAALIKA LI- NUTHABBIT BI- -HI FU'AAD -KA WA- RATTALNAA -HU TARTEL (AN) 25:32

TARTILAA   =    hymn  psalm  song  chant

RATTAL    =    to recite or intone (the Koran) slowly and distinctly,  to hymn,  sing,  chant ,  intone,  modulate, well ordered, neat, to be regular, neat, tidy, to phrase elegantly, motorized convoy.

Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once?" Thus (is it revealed) that We may strengthen thy heart thereby and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow WELL-ARRANGED HYMN. 25:32

THE COMPILATION AND EXPLANATION OF QURAN WAS UPON GOD

LAA TUH.ARRIK BI- -HI LISAAN -KA LI- TAcJAL BI- -HI 75:16
'INNA cALAY -NAA JAMc -HU WA- QUR'AAN ?HU 75:17
FA- 'IDHAA QARA'NAA -HU FA- ITTABIc QUR'AAN ?HU 75:18
THUMMA 'INNA cALAY -NAA BAYAAN ?HU 75:19

JAMAC  =   to gather  collect  to combine  to compile  group  to join  unite  to assemble  bring together  rally  جَمَعَ الأَعْدادَ  to add  add up  جَمَعَ الحُرُوفَ  to compose  set  typeset

Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur'an) to make haste therewith. It is upon Us to COMPILE / assemble it and to recite it: But when We have recited it to you, follow thou its recital: Then it is upon Us (Allah) to EXPLAIN it to you. 75: 16/17/18/19


Summary of the verses:
1. Torah revealed and written on sheet of papers.
2. Quran not revealed on written sheet of papers
3. Quran a Book drafted / composed by God
4. Quran published on a parchment / roll
5. Quran inscribed in Tablets like Torah
6. Quran in a well protected Book
7. Quran written on parchment / roll by Sahabas during the lifetime of Prophet
8. Quran verses were sent down in stages and well arranged.
9. Quran composition and explanation was done by God Himself.

Any one who believes in God and in Quran will believe this, and the one who does not believe in God and in Quran will believe in the fabricated and contradictory hadithes


THANKS
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: /*JM*/ on September 26, 2007, 02:17:46 AM
Very good post, HK

However, can you explain what was paper at the time of Moses ?

TO MOSES, GOD REVEALED THE TORAH, WHICH THEY WROTE ON SHEET OF PAPERS.

Peace

Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.H on July 09, 2008, 01:44:44 AM
Peace

For a great discussion of this subject and things related, one should read The Qu'ran's Self-Image by Daniel Madigan. This book has a very simple goal. To understand what the Quran is according to the Quran. What does the Quran think of itself. Does the Quran consider itself a record of God's dialoge with man, or does it think it is the dialoge of God with man. Does it beleave itself to be every thing God has to say, or simply a gaurenty that God speaks. Madigan thinks that these questons will be answred if the Quranic meaning of the word "Kitab" is decepered(kitab is thought usally to mean book). Why he says the need for this quest. Because since the begining the Quran has been oral(he lists other reasons in the intro, the book is hard to explain I simply recommend you read it). The book demonstrates Madigin's immense intellegence. I dont want to show his overall results. But I will give a result of his concerning the date the Quran was canonised. In his book he never really directly tackles this issue. His book as stated before is meant to show as the title suggests is to find out the Quran's veiw of itself. It does this by analyasing the word Kitab as yoused in the Quran and other ancient sources. But he does inderectly takle this issue in the intro. He is of the opinon that Prophet Muhammed never bothered to codify the Quran (he gives his evidence). To him the Quran was a scripture writen on the hearts of men. For example many classical texts say that during the prophets time muslims had a few meager legal verses writen on leafs,bones,leather and other such materails. So what you get from Danial Madigan's book is that the Quran is a oral scripture. If you disagree with this then atlest read the book for his arguments. I find the idea of a Pre-Uthmanic caninosed Quran somewhat historaical far fecteced. If you still disagree with this and belive in Pre-Uthmanic manuscripts this book's insightfull arguments will still help increace your understanding. In fact I became a Quran only Muslim because of this book. This book showed me that  Muslims belifs often contradict the Quran and that an idea is not nessecarily Quranic because muslims belive it to be.

Lareb
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: maxq on July 13, 2008, 07:59:53 PM
Peace Hafeez, Lareb, all,

While Lareb, I do plan to read this book you mention, I would like to add that the premise is not justified. Quran inscribed on the hearts of men is plausible on one stance but it has nothing to do with codification.

Good explanations Hafeez, however, point me to a verse in the Quran that EXPLICITLY states that "Torah" was "Revealed" to Moses.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.H on July 27, 2008, 11:30:42 PM
Peace

It does. As the book shows early muslims considered the Quran a symbol. Early muslim law did not accept written evidence. Yet the Quran demands it in one verse. For Adultery stoning was used. Even though the Quran mandated flogging. Many laws and rules within the Quran were knowingly avoided. It was never considred the final word. It was merely a symbol of Gods affection for humans. In early Muslim belief its rules and laws were for Muhammed's time and community. It was a "jawab" or answer meant for Arabia. It was not meant for every time and place. In fact its position was debated. Meaning some early muslim considreded it a assurance that God speaks and cares about the world. That he will speak and has spoken. Yet some Muslims considered the Quran the final word. The second group was a minority. But eventully they became the majority. But they found the Quran mute on many important legal issues. This became a probelm. This issue concerning the Qurans ability to give satisfactory legal solutions went on. Also another probelm appered. If the Quran was for every age then it must have been recorded before time. This gave rise to the belief that the Um Kitab mentioned in the Quran was a source book for the Quran. This created many more probelms that are stated in the book. To solve these issues the sunna or Muhammed's example convenintly came along. The concept of inner and outward meanings was introduced. And many concepts found in the Quran were altered or taken out of focus. But the sunna created more confusion and generated more debate. What was the sunna? Was it to be found in hadiths or in the city of Madinah itself (Imam Malik held this view)?  Did the Quran supersede it? Or did the sunna supersede the Quran. You might say what does all of this have to do with Pre-Utmanic manuscripts of the Quran? Alot. I was very inaccurate in saying he does not talk about the codifacation issue. A whole chapter is dedicated to this issue. It is very detaled. If you read the book it chapter 2. Tell us what you find.

Lareb
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: /*JM*/ on August 08, 2008, 04:22:10 AM
For Adultery stoning was used. Even though the Quran mandated flogging. Many laws and rules within the Quran were knowingly avoided. It was never considred the final word.

hello,

Could you provide evidence for that ?

Peace
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on August 08, 2008, 02:30:03 PM
Peace

Many books on Islamic law a few decades after Muhammad can attest to it. Also ancient fuquh and there works and trestises can amply show the conflict between the relation of sunna to Quran. And many sources show and give amply evidence for a avoidence of Quranic rules and norms. In fact a crude form of legal seculurism was begining. For example Abbiaseds jailed prisoners. They also made bails. And the way and manner in which the courts took place contradicted the Quran in many ways. Witness laws were very different than what the Quran dictactes. If you want to know any of these laws many works can be found. Eventully the Qurans position was estabilesed as a paramount. But as stated before this created probelms. So sunna came along. But what the sunna was confused many. To some like Imam Malik the sunna was a living breathing authority found in the "Amal e Madinih" or the practice of Madinih. To some like Imam Shafi it was found in the Hadith. To some the sunna could be disregarded like Imam Abu Hanifi. To some it was a authority on par with the Quran. Imam Shafi sealed it up with his risala aa work which gives facinating glimes into the probelm. Patrica Crone makes note of the blatent disregard for Quranic laws in Gods Caliph. To her it means that the Quran was little known to the masses. Another western scholar seconds her opinon. But in the book cited above it is thoght that this means the had less authority. Another scholar I think (not sure) Mcdonald thinks aswell. If you read Madigan's book look at the footnotes. Also a correcttion. Quranic canonisation is dealt extensively in the second part of chapter 1 and in the footnotes.

God bless
Lareb
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: jonny_k on August 09, 2008, 06:39:44 AM
Peace "L.Hu",
So what your saying is that a society truly following Quran Alone or better deriving the basic laws from Quran Alone never existed, even not during the time of Muhammad's lifetime? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on August 09, 2008, 09:39:21 AM
Peace Jonny

No brother. As I said early muslims would have followed the Quran during the prophet Muhammad's time. The context in which the Quran came brother is facinating. The arabs before having the Quran felt that they were out of God's plan. This idea was emerging because of a increase in monutheistic arabs. Jews had a scripture. Christans had a sripture. Yet Allah some how forgot the arabs. The Quran beatifuly answered this longing for a scripture and presented and introduced to the starveing desert arabs ethics,  morality, brotherhood and kindness. It taught the arabs that senseless killing and murder were wrong. Inheriting women agianst there will was wrong. Worshiping useless unhelpful Gods was wrong. Being cruel was wrong. Anger in its violent form was wrong. Blind faith was wrong. In other words it taught them how to turn from a savage rough and cruel pot of tribes into a civilisesd people how influince the mediterrain and the world. And here my last sentence sums up the probelm. Islam is thought by us to be a Global religion alongside other universal religions. But the Quranic veiw of things is somewhat diffrent. Muhammad is a messenger to the arabs. I am not saying brother that you and me can not follow the Quran since both of us are not arabs. The Quran is a anti racist book. It is filled with egalitraism. In fact its Quranic egalitarinsim that won the arabs over to Islam. But we need to realise the Quran did not drop from the sky. It came peice by peice. To make long story short brother Quran was meant for the arabs. Just as Torah was for Jews. But we can still follow Al Quran. And to be more specific legally the Quran is tied intimately with the early muslim community of Mecca and Medina. This is way the Quran was more of a symbol of God than his word. A assurence that God was not some obscure figure who did not care about you. A assurence that God communicates with man. If you doubt all of this brother jonny a will ask you a qeustion. How did the hadith emerge. Your answer ( I might be wrong) is corruption. My answer is flexeble attitudes toward the Quran. If you are confused concerning mmy ideas you may ask me. I am open to qeuations.

Lareb

 :peace:
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: jonny_k on August 09, 2008, 10:05:11 AM
Peace "L.Hu",

Quote
...Yet Allah some how forgot the arabs...

JK- I hope you meant this statement in reference to what the disbelievers thought of GOD since GOD never forgets and everything happens at an appropriate time. NOW you say that the Quran was only for the Arabs BUT this cannot be true. First of all the Quran focuses a great deal on correcting the corrupted Jewish and Christian beliefs as well. If you look at the OT you can see how it is filled with nonsense and absurdities. Then the Quran says that Muhammad was sent as a mercy to ALL NATIONS(wa ma arsalnaaKA illa rahmata lil 'ALAMEEN) in his time and there were more than Arabs just in his time too. So this cannot be true. Besides this the Quran generally addresses all mankind in many verses and 5:3 mentions clearly that this day GOD has perfected the system named Islam and also calling Muhammad the last of the Prophets i.e. those who deliver a Divine scripture. All this adds up and leads to the conclusion that the Quran is overall universal although it does mention various events in it which were applicable only at the particular times and it states so too. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on August 09, 2008, 03:05:24 PM
Brother jonny ofcoures I meant unbelivers. I will reply to your objections later bro. Right now I will start a separate topic on my veiw of the Quran. If you read it when its done your objections might be answered.

God bless
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: mr. humble on August 09, 2008, 04:04:37 PM
sorry for the off topic post,

two days ago i saw a documentary on national geography channel about quran... at the end of the documentary they said something i think is false is that quran was burned down and then later re-written in the 7th century...

in USA eastern time 900 pm-11:00pm tuesday, august 5th the program "interpreting the quran" was broadcasted on natioanl geographic channel.

i think that documentary showed some truth about islam and some lies at the same time, probably biased research lies fabricated by atheists

Allah knows best!
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: jonny_k on August 10, 2008, 06:26:54 AM
Peace "mr. humble",
I found some videos on youtube in relation to "islam". Could you point out to me whether your claimed documentary is amongst them and which video and which PART EXACTLY mentions that the original Quran has been burnt? Thankyou very much and here is the list of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=national+geographic+quran&search_type=&aq=f
GOD Bless!
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: mr. humble on August 12, 2008, 04:15:56 AM
peace, "Jonny_k"

it was titled: "interpreting the quran"

i am sorry to say..i didn't completely trust that video, it contained information which are a mixture of lies and truth about islam.

at first it showed how muslims interpret 24:31(the verses about hijaab)

then it showed 5:32 and 5:33 contradict each other and the difference between "peaceful muslims" and "violent muslims"..although i disagree!

then at the end it showed how in 7th century they found this "pile of washed up quran" and how arabic writers "re-wrote" it...i think the whole thing was bogus..they probably want to dismiss the idea of a true religion!(they said many things which were, to me as a muslim, questionable...)

here is the national geographic link:

http://ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2008/07/interpreting_the_koran.html

may peace be on you, Rifat
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: maxq on August 14, 2008, 11:33:42 AM
you sure you pointed to the correct link there bro? I do not see the same thing... I mean it is just showing diversity of belief. What's with the "washed up Quran" being rewritten? Would be interested in seeing that one.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: mr. humble on August 15, 2008, 08:14:40 AM
http://ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2008/07/interpreting_the_koran.html
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on August 29, 2008, 02:42:48 PM
Peace

I was reading a book called "The Muslim Jesus" by Tarif Khiladi. It confirmed my understanding. Heres a qoute "Early Islam-or "primitive Islam"...was a porous environment". Also concerning the Quran he says "As for the Qur'an...its status among believers in the early period was not comparable to what it later became. It seems not to have enjoyed any monopoly or major authority". And again Patrica Crone thought this meant the Quran was unknown to early muslim masses. But Mcdonald (or I think it was him) said this meant the Quran was less paramount. Meaning the Quran was perhaps overruled. In fact early sunnies thought the sunna could overrule the Quran. Joseph Scacht also accepted that the Quran had far less authority than now. The book I mentioned by Daniel Madigon deals with this topic in detail. If you do not want to buy the book (you shold I did) heres a perview

 http://books.google.com/books?id=Fn2xu3npcUYC&pg=PP4&dq=Qur%27an%27s+Self-Image+Writing++Authority++Islam%27s+Scripture&sig=ACfU3U3q72FMQ_4k88d2CrnLf8dyrJH1Yw#PPR7,M1
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on August 29, 2008, 02:50:21 PM
Oh and I forgot when the Qurans authority was increased certain problems arised read "The collection of The Quran" by John Burton
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 05, 2008, 06:16:20 PM
Peace

I have decided to comment on the possibility of Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscripts. But before my comments I think revisonist history must be addresed. Many people on this

site have ideas about history that are quite unusally when compared to traditional acconts. I am not in any way saying that revisonist history is bad, or dabbling in it is

wrong. In fact condeming are amauter internet historians who have not grasped the rules of archeology and history would be condeming myself. In the days when I accepted

anything from this site, when I knew nothing about the rules of archeology and its limits, when I had no idea about documentry critism, and when I knew nothing about

philosophy I fully belived that the prophet Muhammed was from Northern Arabia, classical arabic was a fabrication, and the Quran's true context was Nabatia. When I matured

and realized the foolishness of my ways these ideas looked quite funny and laughable.

My denial of such ideas occured when I read Hoylands book (mistakenly used by revisionists but meant by the author to fight such ideas) Patrica Crone's unoffical indirect

renuncation of her belif that Muhammad lived in North Arabia and unofficail acceptance of Muhammad's life in Mecca. Also my understanding of history changed when I read

books concerning the field. In genaral my staments on this issue would create a lengthy post. Now to the Quranic manuscripts. If one says all reports from this period are false

(many are likily true) there existense proves a historacal memory in these so called fabricaters. They had no reason to lie. If you belive that they had reasons to lie that

means you do not really understand the context of these reports. They may have fabricated these reports to aknowlegde a certain commen historcal memory. It is clear that

maybe a Quran was never canosed until 48 years after the prophet died not 25. Why you may ask did the prophet not canonise the Quran. This qeustion lies at the heart of

what the Quran is.

Madigan's book convinced me of its position. All who can should read this book. Also other books by scholars and even books by the scholar Shafia can give answers. Shafia's

arguments suck.

So do not read it for some excellent arguments. Its polemic and attacks agianst other muslim groups in the second century of Islam (the book was writen in the second

century of Islam) are the valuble portions since they give insight into early Islam's sectarian flavour and peoples veiws at the time about the Quran. Any further questions

please ask me. Also if I sound arrogant im not. Writing as the Philosopher Socrates noted destroys speechs tone, meaning I am quite humble but because of my writing style I

may sound like a hauty fool. Again if you have any questions please ask.

God Bless
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 07, 2008, 02:26:32 PM
Sorry for attacking this thread (nobodys intrested in it any more) but I forgot to tell you something. John Burton belived the Quran was not a source of law untill the 800's. Meaning it had no legal authority after Muhammad's death even among the companions.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 07, 2008, 04:48:57 PM
Peace

Again sorry for being the only person to particapate in this thread but Wansborgh also thought the Quran was not used legally and that its authority was meager at best. Althogh the idea is right the inference drawn by Wansborgh is totaly wrong. Since the Quran only starts to become a authoratative refrence after the 800's Wansborgh wrongly assumes the Quran to be a product of the 800's and of Iraq not of Arabia and the 600's. He thinks the Quran had evolved and was canonesed in 200 years. The inference may be wrong but his statement about the Qurans early authority is right and was confirmed years before by Joseph Scacht and Goldizer
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 08, 2008, 07:00:30 PM
Peace

I know this thread has been neglected and any memory of it has vanised from the people who posted on it. So you may ask why I bother to post on this thread? Well the honest reason is that I want a debate. I know the possibly existence of so called pre-Uthmanic Quran Manuscripts does not seem to be a issue to think on or something to waste one's mental energy on. I think it is. The manuscripts themselves are not important but if they exist they would offer insight into the Qurans status among early believers. You might ask how? Well, if Muhammad bothered to preserve the text then that means he wanted it to be preserved for posterity. In other words he considred it important enough to protect and as a result it offers a form of indirect evidence for the contemporery Muslim belief that the Quran is the final eternal word of God meant for all times. Although this understanding of mere pre-Uthmanic manuscripts may seem a streech but some people may draw such a infrence. Then you may ask why care about the Qurans early status? My answer is simple. In these times of modernity Quranic punishments such as 100 lashes for adultery, cutting the hand of a thief (I know some have offered arguments saying the verse is not talking about cutting a thief's hand but they do not really convince me), treason being punised by tying and ruthlessly cutting the hands and feet of the person who commitid treason are now considred cruel and quite ruthless. Such ideas are now regarded as repulsive and often disturb the modern mind. But some who believe in the eternal status of Quranic punisments like those mentioned above, or Quranic rules and recommendations such as womens testomny in business, and the inherintance issue, have made apolgetic excuses to save themselves the shame of defending such practices. Sometimes they make intrepations far from the text. More intellingent Muslim scholars (like Fazlur Rahman) accept that the Quran has a uncomprmisingly beutiful egilatren spirit and that the Quran preaches social justice and radical brotherhood. But these primative and quite cruel laws were comprmises by the Quran since without such cruel practices Islam would have died out (in particular for Islam's survival see treason). But Muslims no longer live in the cruel world of sixth century Arabia. The world has changed, Islam is no longer a fresh new religion always on the verge of destruction, apostacy no longer poses the threat it use to, meaning apostates are not commiting treason or trying to destroy Islam, women now are independent and now can fully compete with men in matters relating to business (see testmony), many women run there own households, and also bring home the bacon and need money unlike the Quran's originally sixth century context (see inheritense). But such "contextual" Muslims are not very popular even among us. Many of are members never think of these cruel punisments as a means of controling sixth century problems through sixth century solutions. Also very few among us have considred some of these punisments and even rules ways of saving the new religion. Islam was a vunrable faith which wanted to change arab soceity. The Quran wanted Muslims to help the poor, save orphans, and administer social, econimic, political, and legal justice. But Islam could only do these great things and make the Arabs into a respactable society if it had unchallenged authority. And in late antiqity authority (especily unchallenged authority) came often only after much blood and cruelty. As Niccolo Machiavelli would have said the ends justify the means. Instead of accepting this reality and saying these cruel practices and unapplicable regulations are not meant for are time, many among us act foolisly and gloss these practices, our advocate humoris intrepations that leave much to be desired. After that lengthy opening I think we can now understand why my constant and somewhat iriting barrage of evidence from respected scholars and refrences to anchient sources that reveal that the Quran was never used after Muhammad's death as a legal source and it was not even refrenced in legal circles and perhaps it may have been absent in moral circles as well. Only in the 800's was the Quran to be considred the eternal, last, and final word of God. I think also ignoring all I said, from a purely historiacal perspective manuscripts before Uthman are far fected. Even the Sunni claim of the Quran being caninised by Abu Bakr and Omar then merely copyed by Utman was refuted by a certain scholar (I think it was Noldeke). He showed Utman was the first even to care about transcribing the Quran. I think there should be a consturtive and calm debate on this issue. But I think I made a mistake taking this thread away from a disscussion of manuscripts into a disscussion of early authority (in which I talk to myself). Please particapate in this thread. But forget all I said about early authority. Any discussion should be about the purpose of this thread. Early manuscipts. I will make my own thread on the Quran's early authority with more extensive refrences to respected scholars and other works. For now I think its sufficent to talk about the manuscipts. Also I hope now you who have looked at this thread know why I have such a intrest in it. Also look at my second comment on this thread.

"early muslims considered the Quran a symbol. Early muslim law did not accept written evidence. Yet the Quran demands it in one verse. For Adultery stoning was used. Even though the Quran mandated flogging. Many laws and rules within the Quran were knowingly avoided. It was never considred the final word. It was merely a symbol of Gods affection for humans. In early Muslim belief its rules and laws were for Muhammed's time and community. It was a "jawab" or answer meant for Arabia. It was not meant for every time and place. In fact its position was debated. Meaning some early muslim considreded it a assurance that God speaks and cares about the world. That he will speak and has spoken. Yet some Muslims considered the Quran the final word. The second group was a minority. But eventully they became the majority. But they found the Quran mute on many important legal issues. This became a probelm... Also another probelm appered. If the Quran was for every age then it must have been recorded before time. This gave rise to the belief that the Um Kitab mentioned in the Quran was a source book for the Quran. This created many more probelms that are stated in the book. To solve these issues the sunna or Muhammed's example convenintly came along. The concept of inner (batin) and outward (zahir) meanings was introduced. And many concepts found in the Quran were altered or taken out of focus. But the sunna created more confusion and generated more debate. What was the sunna? Was it to be found in hadiths or in the city of Madinah itself (Imam Malik held this view)?  Did the Quran supersede it? Or did the sunna supersede the Quran..."

God Bless
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 11, 2008, 07:40:42 PM
I was reading Daniel Brown's "A new Introduction to Islam". He also confirmed my veiw. He states that the Quran had very little authority in the begining. It was not used for legal or ethical purposes. Only untill the 9 century was it to gain its important status.

Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 12, 2008, 10:08:10 PM
Peace

I just love this thread. Im unchallenged thats why! Nobody corrects a mistake or says im wrong. Why is nobody intrested in this thread anymore. The person who started it (maxq) is also not having any intreset in it. But its also a little fun since nobody is challenging me, so I can post any thing I want. Anyway after reveiwing all the books in my libray I have realized my blindness. Before I started ranting on this thread I never noticed that all of them stated at some point in their books that in the early days of Islam the Quran was not a source of law. It was never discused by legal jurists in that period. In debates with Christans the Quran is absent. When mentioned in any promenint book of that period the mention is breif. It is sometimes overuled by a companions decision. Its norms were never considred final. Scholars knew the Quran had made a clear recomadition and sometimes even a clear command, yet they would ignore it. All my books say this. Although books by Muslims in my libray give very breif mention of these facts. Books by non-muslims are more clear. Also all my books say the Quran gained its esteemed position and importance in the 800's. Also even though the Quran was after the 9th century important, the physical text had not gained it present status. Imam Bukari (collecter of Sahih Bukari) thought that the Quran could be read in the bathroom. Also in the state of nakedness. He also said someone in the state of ritual impurity could read the book. Also the wording of the Quran was not resepected. A look at the dome of the rock will revel this. Countless inscriptions from this period have Quranic verses. But many times two unrealted verses are patched together and made to look like one verse. Also phrases are freely inserted without warning. Also variant readings of the Quran were allowed (eventully only ten). The Quran after Muhammad's death would be seen by both his companions and there desendants as a symbol of God's affection rather than the word of God. It was never thought to be all God wanted to say it was only proof he would and has spoken. Before this thread and my dialog with myself on this thread I never noticed these facts contained within the books I had. And whenever I reread a book I have, it reitaretes the Qurans low status in the early period. But again I will make a separte post on this subject. If you want to discuss something on this thread about pre-uthmanic Qurans please do. This thread needs somebody else to write in it. But still again its fun not being challenged. 
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 19, 2008, 05:17:15 PM
Peace

I was reading Graham's book on the Quran and Hadith ul Qudsi. He confirmed my understanding also. But his whole chapter was not on the Quran's legal status and authority but on the Quran's generally status and authority. Still it showed succesefully that the Quran had less authority.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: maxq on September 26, 2008, 12:11:55 PM
Peace

I just love this thread. Im unchallenged thats why! Nobody corrects a mistake or says im wrong. Why is nobody intrested in this thread anymore. The person who started it (maxq) is also not having any intreset in it. But its also a little fun since nobody is challenging me, so I can post any thing I want. Anyway after reveiwing all the books in my libray I have realized my blindness. Before I started ranting on this thread I never noticed that all of them stated at some point in their books that in the early days of Islam the Quran was not a source of law. It was never discused by legal jurists in that period. In debates with Christans the Quran is absent. When mentioned in any promenint book of that period the mention is breif. It is sometimes overuled by a companions decision. Its norms were never considred final. Scholars knew the Quran had made a clear recomadition and sometimes even a clear command, yet they would ignore it. All my books say this. Although books by Muslims in my libray give very breif mention of these facts. Books by non-muslims are more clear. Also all my books say the Quran gained its esteemed position and importance in the 800's. Also even though the Quran was after the 9th century important, the physical text had not gained it present status. Imam Bukari (collecter of Sahih Bukari) thought that the Quran could be read in the bathroom. Also in the state of nakedness. He also said someone in the state of ritual impurity could read the book. Also the wording of the Quran was not resepected. A look at the dome of the rock will revel this. Countless inscriptions from this period have Quranic verses. But many times two unrealted verses are patched together and made to look like one verse. Also phrases are freely inserted without warning. Also variant readings of the Quran were allowed (eventully only ten). The Quran after Muhammad's death would be seen by both his companions and there desendants as a symbol of God's affection rather than the word of God. It was never thought to be all God wanted to say it was only proof he would and has spoken. Before this thread and my dialog with myself on this thread I never noticed these facts contained within the books I had. And whenever I reread a book I have, it reitaretes the Qurans low status in the early period. But again I will make a separte post on this subject. If you want to discuss something on this thread about pre-uthmanic Qurans please do. This thread needs somebody else to write in it. But still again its fun not being challenged. 

the person who started this thread is pulling 16 hour days at work for the past 5 weeks... sorry to keep you waiting but I may have other things to do.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 27, 2008, 09:49:57 PM
Prophet Muhammad never knew his follower's would collect his divine utterences and call the collection of these utterences Al Quran. When Muhammad was alive revealtions were treated very unussaly. Basicly there was no Quran. What is today known as the Quran may be only 2 percent or 1 of what Muhammad considered divine revealtions. Although it is clear the Quran has not been edited or gone throgh a evolution. In other words Muhammad would have recodnized the contents of are Qurans. But he would have been confused why these divine sayings had been collected and why they were missing more sayings. Then you may ask what is the Quran mentioned in the Quran. Madigan's book answers the qeustion. But to confirm everything stated above read Graham's book. He also shows the Quran we have in mind is not what the early community had in mind. Although the theory of abrogation is a later fabrication it offers a glimpse into early Islam. The theory of abrogation was created because if the Quran was perfect why were there contridictions in it. In early Islam the Quran's contridictory nature was never a problem. God gave a edict out of his wisdom. But that edict was considred temporery. When a new problem will arise God will give a new edict. Even though these divine sayings which we refer to as Quranic verses would contradict each other they were respected. God loves humanity. So God would never give a final solution. Conditions change so much that a final solution is a impossibilaty. God never fixed any of his rulings. In other words God is a dynamic authority that provides often contradictory solutions to probelms because times change. That is way the Quran is so contradictory. So you may ask what happened to a Quranic verse challenging people to find a contridiction in the Quran. The Quran mentioned in this verse and others is not are collection of divine sayings. If you read "Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam" By William A. Graham (not to be confused with the christan evangilist) you will find the answer to that qeustion. For early Islam's view of God's evoling authority and God's dynamicness read Patrica Crone's and Martin Hind's "God's Caliph". Although I do not buy Crone's thesis fully I think she has been able to show early Islam's veiw of divine authority. Again though her theory about the caliph in early Islam being more important then prophet Muhammad and having more respect than prophet Muhammad is I think a streach. Although I am of the opinion that in primative Islam the Caliph was eqaul to prophet Muhammad and may have also been considred a recipient of divine revaulation. I also think the so called Hadith ul Qudsi are actully the so called revaulations which the early caliphs may have thought God had revaled to them are inspired to them. But later these so called divine caliphil utterences which may have been eqaul to the Quran were made into prophetic utterences that were now thought to be extra-Quranic revaltions to Muhammad. I also agree with Crone and Hind that origanally the Caliph had his own sunnah. Later the Caliph's sunnah was transformed into Muhammad's sunnah.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: maxq on September 30, 2008, 12:27:45 PM
L.Hu,
I wish I could reply right away but your post deserves to be properly researched without general assumptions. I appreciate your reply and see that you are bringing an excellent perspective to the table that one needs to look into by setting time aside. I will do so but I am not sure with my schedule how that is possible in the near future. Rest assured, I will try to research this... the only problem for me is when, and not if/whether.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on September 30, 2008, 03:50:59 PM
You can research if you want. Since you can not research in the near future its ok. Work is very very important and essential. My perspective is not important if it disrupts your schedule. But if you do want to research there are alot of books were you can. Here are a few. I will classifie them into what they are about. "Hadith Scholarship". First books by westerners who consider hadiths unrealible and not the words of Muhammad but words put into the mouth of Prophet Muhammad centuries later. These scholars are called "sceptical". Heres a classic. Muslim Studies by Ignaz Goldziher. This two volume work is a classic as said before and undoubtedly laid the grond and set the tone for all future research. The first volume is a essential work on early Islam and arabia. But since we are at hadith scholarship and in particular the "sceptical" school we will comment on the second volume. The second volume is concerned with the devolempment of hadiths. Before Goldziher Aloy Sprenger and William Muir had shown doubts about the hadith literture's historical validity. But they accepted Sahih Bukari, Sahih Muslim, and Tirmadha as railible sources. Goldziher shocked Scholars and fellow oriantalist's with his claim that most if not all hadiths were later fabrications that were made by muslims mostly in Iraq, Syria, Arabia, and to a lesser extent Iran. They reflect the opinons and beliefs of feuding sectarian groups within primative Islam that wanted there opinons to be attributed to prophet Muhammad to gain credence. In basic his conclusion was that when reading Sahih Bukari or any Hadith book you should not search for the opinons of Muhammad or a genuine record of events during Muhammad's life. Instead what you should be searching for is a rich frozen record of the opinons of early Muslims. Naturally this left historians with nothing. There only source for Muhammad's life was gone. They could not write any biography of Muhammad. Thus for 50 years historians praised and payed lip service to Goldziher's finds but used Hadiths often in writing the story of Muhammad's life. Because of the lack of genuine critacal scholarship a man came and sealed the faith of Hadiths in the west. That man was Joseph Scahct. His classic is "The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence". This book is in almost every bibliography on this subject. The book is essential and it is best not to summarize its contents. A simple thing to know about it is that it has had a monumental impact and is a manifesto for people like Patrica Crone and John Wansborough. Read it. The Sectarian Milieu: Content And Composition of Islamic Salvation History by John Wansborough is also a classic but is to be approcaed with caution. I will later list more but im very tired. good bye.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: maxq on October 01, 2008, 06:36:44 AM
I have read the above... however I was hoping you had stumbled on something even more groundbreaking. Anyhow, we'll chat in a few months.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 01, 2008, 12:44:20 PM
Read Harald Motzki's excellent anthology called "Hadith: Origins and Developments" by Harald Motzki. Contains alot of rare articles that are hard to find. Youthful God: Anthropomorphism in Early Islam by Josef Van Ess is also good. Between Bible and Quran: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image by Uri Rubin is excellent. The Development Of Islamic Ritual by G. R. Hawting is also a good work. The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muhammad As Viewed by the Early Muslims--A Textual Analysiy by Uri Rubin is essential. Muslim Tradition: Studies in Chronology, Provenance and Authorship of Early Hadith by G. H. A. Juynboll is a good middle way perspective between sceptism (Joseph Scauht) and niaveness (Nabia Abbot). The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period by Herbert Berg is very good and a excellent example of sceptical scholarship although his doubts concerning every Islamic text and some of his claims and his likings for the too sceptical Wansborough are I think wrong but still very ground breaking. Also if you read any early arabic text from this period that is translated you will note that the amount of times the Quran is mentioned increses with time and also in legal and even ethical disscussions it is absent untill the eight centurie. I think you may have read Daniel Madigan's book but if not you should get the book. Basicly in early Islam god was a evolving authority who would continue to communicate with man. It was this dynamic veiw of God that made Muslims so careless towards the Quran. It was meant for Arabia and as such was not meant for all time. Besides this the Quran is also a small sampling of what were divine utterrences. The fact that legally, ethically, and sometimes theologically the Quran was treated as it did not exist made some foolish western scholars think the Quran is a product of the 8th centurie and of Iraq. The discoverie of the Sana manuscripts refute this but still the sources point to the Quran having little authority. Looking forward to chating with you Maxq
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 05, 2008, 12:28:17 AM
Oh I forgot about one thing. The Umayyads are depicted in all Abbaised sources as non-religous, secular, unmuslim, greedy, and cruel beasts. In "God's Caliph" Crone and Hinds show quite well that this better reflects Abbaised hatred of their Umayad predessors and less a historacal reality. In fact Umayyad Caliph's may have thought of themselves as equal to prophets. They would have had their own "sunnahs" or examples. They probably believed that God was their friend and they may have considered themselves recepients of divine revaltion. Thus the picture painted by later sources are wrong. With that lets consider the Umayyad punishment for theft. Some at this site have tried to show that the Quran is not advocating hand mutailation. I remain unconvinced at their attempts. So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting. The Umayyad punishment was flogging. Something to reflect on before you start researching the Quran's early authority.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Muslimtruthrevealed on October 08, 2008, 09:41:08 AM
..........So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting. The Umayyad punishment was flogging. Something to reflect on before you start researching the Quran's early authority.

Assalaam Alaikum @L.Hu

Im sorry your assertion that the Quran suggests mutilating and cutting is a false literal misinterpretation of the Quran....

Even by reading the English translation without delving deeply into Quranic Arabic grammatical analysis makes it quite clear.

? [Al-Ma'idah 5.36] Surely those who reject, if they had everything that is in the earth and the like of it with it, to REDEEM themselves from the punishment on the day of judgement, it would never be accepted from them. And for them is a grievous punishment.

Those who reject guidance will have a punishment on their judgement.

[Al-Ma'idah 5.38] As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands. a punishment by way of EXAMPLE, FROM ALLAH, for their crime. and Allah is Exalted in power.

Even the translation I posted has some problems, yet as you can read it states 'a punishment by way of EXAMPLE from Allah'....NOT by Men cutting off someone's hands!

****************************************************************************************

Lets address the quranic arabic grammar...I will just post it, its self explanatory. No commentary needed.

[Al-Ma'idah 5.38] As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands. a punishment by way of EXAMPLE, FROM ALLAH, for their crime. and Allah is Exalted in power.

والسارق والسارقة فاقطعوا أيديهما جزاء بما كسبا نكلا من الله والله عزيز حكيم

[Al-Ma'idah 5.38] Wa alssariqu [male addicted to concealing or stealing] wa alssariqatu [female addicted to concealing or stealing] fa iqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan [in compensation] bima [for what you] kasaba [earned] nakalan [by example] mina [from] Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun

FA (conjunctive) means and then, therefore; Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 809

IQTAAAOO (PASSIVE IMPERFECT Verb)means to separate, sever relations, interrupt, silence ; Root word Qata?a
Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 906- 912 (qata?a)

Passive means a verb, or form of a verb, which expresses the effect of the action on the  Subject of the verb, Not active, but acted upon; suffering or receiving impressions or INTERNAL influences

aydiyahuma means by his effort, owing to his activity, by or through him, by his means, scatter in all directions, disperse;Root word Yad, foreleg, handle, power, control, influence, authority, assistance
Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary 4th Ed. Page 1296- 1296 (yad) (aidihim)

The ayah is NOT cutting off someone's 'hands', its severing the influences, power and resources of the mujrimeen/criminals.

****************************************************************************************

? [Al-Furqan 25.31] Thus have We made for every prophet an enemy among the sinners/criminals / mujrimeen. but enough is thy Lord to guide and to help.

? [Al-An`am 6.123] And likewise in every village (i.e. community) We have made its criminals / mujrimeeha big people to plan in it. And they do not plan except against themselves / their souls and they are not aware of it.

Mujrimeen (act. Pic, MASCULINE singular Verb Form IV) Sinner ;Root word Jarama to cut off, loop off, acquire a thing, commit a crime, drive one into crime, ONE WHO CUTS OFF TIES WITH ALLAH

****************************************************************************************

We are judged by what our 'hands' produced. Our 'hands' represent our influence and acceptance of guidance or rejection of that guidance.

[Al-Anfal 8.50] If you couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the Unbelievers (at death), (How) they smite their faces and their backs, (saying). "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire-

[Al-Anfal 8.51] "Because of (the deeds) which your (own) hands sent forth; for Allah is never unjust to His servants.



Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 08, 2008, 06:05:10 PM
I desire more evidence. More evidence from Quran

Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Muslimtruthrevealed on October 08, 2008, 10:37:44 PM
I desire more evidence. More evidence from Quran



Assalaam Alaikum

@L. Hu

I have provided substantial evidence to refute your negative allegation against the Quran. If the evidence I have provided is insufficient then please suggest what evidence is required to to validate your concerns.

If your acceptance criteria is rational and logical, the Quran will confirm them. If your acceptance criteria is illogical and/or irrational then the Quran will also confirm the illegitimacy of your criteria.

Keep in mind that the burden of proof is upon the accuser, thus any negative assertions and/or allegations against the Quran MUST be proven, from the Quran itself. (by the accuser)

The Quran will bear witness to the truth.

I await your response.

****************************************************************************************

? [Al-An`am 6.19] Say. "What thing is greatest in evidence?" Say. "Allah is witness between me and you; This Qur'an has been Revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can you possibly bear witness that besides Allah there is another Allah?" Say. "No! I cannot bear witness!" Say. "But in truth He is the one Allah, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."


[Al-Jathiyah 45.2] The revelation of the Book is from Allah the Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.

[Al-Jathiyah 45.6] Such are the Signs of Allah, which are rehearsed to you in Truth; then in what hadeeth will they believe after (rejecting) Allah and His Signs?

[Al-Jathiyah 45.20] These are clear evidences to men and a Guidance and Mercy to those of assured Faith.

Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 09, 2008, 01:15:17 PM
When did I ever accuse the Quran. Why should I accuse the Quran. Cutting a theifs hand was a good solution in the seventh century. But now its considered barbaric. Although we may deny this the concept of human rights does not exist directly in the Quran. Because the Quran was revauled to a people who probably would never have understod the concept. Human rights is a modern idea. So it is not amazing that a seventh century book would not contain the idea. Also it is dishonest on your part to accuse me of accuseing the Quran.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Muslimtruthrevealed on October 09, 2008, 08:19:09 PM
Assalaam Alaikum @L. Hu

Your statement "Some at this site have tried to show that the Quran is not advocating hand mutailation. I remain unconvinced at their attempts. So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting."

I have shown you clearly from the Quran that there is no 'cutting' of hands, period. Since you have not brought any rational or logical criteria, I will accept and confirm that the evidence you have been presented with will suffice.

If you have any other questions, I await your response.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Roshan on October 11, 2008, 05:55:03 AM
Thus for 50 years historians praised and payed lip service to Goldziher's finds but used Hadiths often in writing the story of Muhammad's life.

Peace:

Exactly why I wrote what I wrote concerning Matin Ling's book, which you curiously disagreed with.

Roshan
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 11, 2008, 11:19:47 AM
Sorry man. I may have sounded rude. Well even though I posted books by sceptics there are some western scholars who dissagre with Goldziher and Schacht. Like Sezgin and Abbot. But I like the sceptic side better. Well the reason I dissagred with you was that on the basis of conttent Tariq Ramadhan's and Karen Armstorngs bios have no simalarity. If you want to convert a non-muslim to Islam give them Armstorng's or Ramadhan's biography of Muhammad. Ling's book is a good book for making people leave Islam. Sorry if I was rude.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Roshan on October 11, 2008, 06:58:07 PM
Sorry man. I may have sounded rude. Well even though I posted books by sceptics there are some western scholars who dissagre with Goldziher and Schacht. Like Sezgin and Abbot. But I like the sceptic side better. Well the reason I dissagred with you was that on the basis of conttent Tariq Ramadhan's and Karen Armstorngs bios have no simalarity. If you want to convert a non-muslim to Islam give them Armstorng's or Ramadhan's biography of Muhammad. Ling's book is a good book for making people leave Islam. Sorry if I was rude.

Peace:

I don't remember you ever being rude. In fact, I am impressed with your library! These are exactly the books I am looking to read. Yes, Ling's book read like a Sunni fairytale. I could not stand it. There should be plenty of historical references to Muhammad (like the treaty of Muhammad).

Roshan
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 11, 2008, 11:53:04 PM
"I am impressed with your library!"
Thank you. If you want to know about more books ask. I have a ton of them.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Roshan on October 13, 2008, 02:09:05 AM
Have you reviewed any of them on amazon? If so, what name do you do under there (so I can persuse your reviews).

Roshan
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 13, 2008, 11:06:05 AM
Well I have not done any review on Amazon. But if you want I will review all the books I have mentioned. My name on Amazon is muhammad humayoun. So if you want me to review there I will. But if you want me to review here no problem. If you want me to review on Amazon or here should I give the books realability, methods, arguments, conclusion, readablity, and writing style. Or should I skip the last 2. Or do you not want me to talk about the books conclusion. I find no problem reviewing all those books. If you want I will review them. Remember muhammad humayoun. Just tell me if you want to review.

Lareb
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: maxq on October 16, 2008, 01:17:59 PM
bro L.Hu,
Ok so let me try to answer your questions, or at least give my opinion (since I have a breather for a day or two).

Umayyads as equal to prophets:
1) It is true that early Khulafaa were considered political as well as "religious" (I'd rather call it spiritual) authoritarians, I highly doubt they considered themselves equal to prophets. I mean "divine" (or transcendent) inspiration is a basic tenet of TaSawwuf (Sufiism). My own grandfather had allegedly written down the time of his natural death long before he died; how much of this is fact and how much is fiction, I don't know. It was prevalent in many other circles in Arabia and the Fertile crescent (exhibits are the apocalypses of various Christian and Jewish religious figures). Did all these people consider (or allege) themselves prophets or equals to prophets? Doubtful generally speaking; we do have exceptions in case of the person we have come to know as Muhammad, and others being Musailmah etc.
2) If indeed Umayyads considered themselves equals to prophets, then why would the Dome of the Rock read "You (God) bless Muhammad Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God". This portion of the inscription does not belong to the amendment made by Mamum ur Rashid, and is the most likely the original inscription from the time of Abd al Malik bin Marwaan.
3) Was Quran considered secondary (or as equivalent to other edicts) at this point: Likely, since the concept of intercession by the prophet is NOT A QURANIC CONCEPT.

Cutting of the Hands
1) I agree with "Muslimtruthrevealed" but I will not say that you are accusing the Quran lol
2) Many such prescriptions seem to have been neglected or interepreted literally by the Khulafa. What I want from you is evidence that Muhammad (or whatever his name was) prescribed literally cutting the hands of habitual thieves (and I am not asking for a verse or hadith, but a historic record outside of the Islamic "history" corpus). It is strange that non-Islamic documentation of the era mentions ludicrous festivals, kissing of the black stone, murdering of people in villages, praying in a certain direction, alliance with the Jew, and yet no cutting of any hands is mentioned.

Quran: Any kind of Authority
1) First off, I think Quran is a wee bit older than its alleged span of "revelation". Bro Ayman on the forums thinks that Muhammad was born at least 20 years earlier than the historic record, but I feel it may be half a century before that. This is my hypothesis which I intend to research (hopefully in this lifetime lol)
2) I do not think that "muslims/mu'mins" during the times of Muhammd were following a religion. They came from several religions who had come under one corporeal recognition, the majority being Arabs (who were predominently Hagaraeans along with jewish, christian, mandaean, perhaps even pagan sub-groups etc). Strikingly, this is in agreement with Robert Hoylad’s implied conclusion in Seeing Islam as Others Saw it.
3) Quran would have, at that point, served as a commentary for each group on their respective beliefs (and perhaps to seek freedom by being rational and abandon "muhaggar" their dogma - along with some prescriptions) and did not have the position of a "religious" scripture. But that would mean it did have "reminding" authority: Exactly what the Quran claims itself to be. Again, my hypothesis which I intend to research.
4) It is only later that we see this group morph into Muslims (Saracins or Ishmailites being their old nicknames).
5) Extra-Quranic or Para-Quranic revelations are not a new allegation. In fact sunni and shia circles have this belief prevelant. However there has been considerable debate over this on the forums so I'd rather you search and study those threads... or better yet, try to talk with Bro Ayman, Arnold Yasin or some of the other learned people on this forum.


Hopefully this gives you some understanding of where I stand.


PS: I have made some revisons to better explain my position...
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 16, 2008, 02:27:43 PM
With all do respect. Thank you for your answer. I liked it. But I do dissagre with your Muhammad's birth thing. I mean you no disrespect but I think its far fected. Your hagarene thesis seems good but the person who helped create it no longer accepts it (Patrica Crone). Micheal Cook also denys it now. In one article she (Crone) says that we know more about Muhammad then any man before modern times. Also to the Khailifa thing one can accept a prophet and also consider oneself eqaul to them. The Khalifs would have thought that they were speacial figures equal to prophets. To the hand cutting thing, you ask for evidence outside of Islamic sources. You ask because you assume the Islamic tradition is not realible. Although since we are Quran alone and like Schacht's scepticism it is slowly being shown to have exgarrated things. Harald Motzki has shown Islamic records are quite reliable. And non muslim records are as unrealible as Muslim records. Because non muslim records record great slaughter and destruction at the conquests. But archeology shows muslims affected very little the middle eastern way of life. Wine was drunk and pigs were raised. No records of burning is found. No mass conversions took place. In fact some schoalars deny Muslims every conquered anything since such little evidence of violence exists. So in this regard non muslim sources are unrealible. Also in Hoyland's book he (Hoyland) often says that non muslim sources tell the same story as muslim sources. In fact the goal of his book is to attack revisonist history and ideas that deem muslim historiacal tradition wrong. Since according to him non muslim sources match muslim sources. Also in one book I read this idea is refuted. For example even though the gospels are not realible, if you rally on jewish sources jesus was the son of a prostitute. In regard to extra Quranic revaltions the Quran's we have are a small sampling of a massive unrecorded oral tradition. I like in regards to Islamic history one scholars view. Muhammad exsited. Abu Bakr exsited. Omar existed. Utham exsited. Ali exsited. Islam was born in the hijaz. Muhammad was born near the date specifed. But details concerniing these people is often dubius. Thus I reject Crone's old thesis. Anywhy she now rejects it. I like your ideas. But they are historical far fected. But still good ideas. If you research all opinons with a open mind you will find superior ideas. Still your ideas show you are intelligent. But you merely need to study the sceince of history, the limitions of archeologhy, and source critism, and redaction. After learning these you will realise why your present ideas are far fected. Still you are intelligent. Again thank you for your input. Have more thoughts present them.

 :sun:  :peace:
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: maxq on October 16, 2008, 02:38:44 PM
Hoyland's goal may only be declared by him, and he has tried to bridge gaps, but he himself admits the historicity of Islam almost abruptly surfaces which is extremly interesting...

And yes if I may add I agree that people we have now come to know as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali may have existed, but in what capacity? Were they close friends and family? I can't say yet

Thanks for being open about this. I'll consider your proposal, as always :)
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: L.Hu on October 16, 2008, 03:33:27 PM
Thanks for your answer and being willing to listen to other opinons. Very few people are able to listen to other opinons or consider them. You are a uniqe exception.
Title: Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
Post by: Bigmo on April 19, 2009, 09:51:50 AM
Thanks for your answer and being willing to listen to other opinons. Very few people are able to listen to other opinons or consider them. You are a uniqe exception.

Identifying Assumptions in the
HADITH/SUNNAH DEBATE

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

Too often we become embroiled in arguments over hadith and sunnah with their advocates before considering the disparate assumptions underlying our opposing viewpoints. The debate that ensues often becomes little more than a game, debate for the sake of debate, or a contest to determine the better debater rather than the truth. This complicates discussions. Perhaps while we are occupied in pointless debate, there are others who sincerely wish to know the truth but who are currently deprived of our insight because our time and energy are being consumed by people who have no interest in the truth.
The assumptions that underlie the respective positions of proponents and opponents of hadith and sunnah generally revolve around what is meant by "discarding" them. The opponents of hadith and sunnah are concerned only with the question of sanctity [of upholding God?s word], their proponents, on the other hand, are concerned with the prescriptive vacuum that they fear would be created if all the world's Muslims suddenly do away with their volumes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and the rest of the transcribers of the oral traditions of the early Islamic era. In a given debate, therefore, the Submitter [the advocate of following the Quran alone] may think that "discarding" hadith and sunnah means merely resisting the belief that they could serve as a source of divine guidance, while the advocate of hadith and sunnah may think it means doing away with information valuable for providing insight into certain aspects of early Islamic history. In such a debate, the debaters could reach a consensus if each realizes what the other assumes is understood from the outset.

In order to carry on more rational debates and, more importantly, to determine whether our prospective opponents in debate are interested in the truth or merely the debate itself, we ought to clarify what our main concern is before we start. Do we wish to debate the ostensibly divine origins of the oral traditions or merely their historical or philological merit? Do we wish to debate the accuracy of their content? Do we wish to discuss the reliability of oral tradition in general, of which the hadith and sunnah are merely transcriptions? To many Submitters the oral traditions are as intriguing as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some may hold hadith philology in the same regard as many of us hold non-religious hobbies. Being Submitters, however, they do not confuse their academic interests with their worship. We should be careful not to encourage an exaggerated fear of the oral traditions, just as the advocates of hadith and sunnah should have sense enough not to forment an irrational fear of the consequences of carrying on discussions without them.

To exemplify my point, I refer to Edip Yuksel?s responses to three questions from an advocate of hadith and sunnah in the May ?95 issue of SP. While his responses are clear and valid, they do not directly address the assumptions held by the questioner. It is my opinion that, if we are quick to entertain debate before we have considered the assumptions underlying the questions, we are bound to wind up with very lengthy responses that do very little to address the central issues.

The first question asks whether rejecting the validity of all "trustworthy" (sahih) hadith is warranted on the basis of examination of a few of them. This implies two assumptions:

(1) that Submitters base their entire position regarding hadith and sunnah on the identification of a few flaws; and

(2) that they reject the possibility outright that some hadith may be accurate historical accounts. However, Submitters reject hadith first and foremost because the Quran specifically requires the faithful to make the Quran their only source of guidance. Textual analysis has nothing to do with it. Analysis of the content of hadith merely serves to corroborate the dictate, after the fact. As for the other point, Submitters do not deny the historical validity of much of hadith. (As Edip Yuksel accurately points out, "we can study hadith to get an approximate idea about the people and events of those times.")

However, Submitters do not bother to undertake the difficult task of sorting out truth from falsehood in them because the primacy of the Quran makes the oral traditions utterly irrelevant as far as guidance is concerned. Given the choice of flawless guidance from the Quran and dubious anecdotes from the hadith, only a fool would choose to study the latter in place of the former.

The second question is really a restatement of the first. It suggests examination of each hadith individually to assess its veracity. Suffice it to say that the underlying assumptions are the same, and the task suggested could only interest a historian or philologist. It would do nothing to enhance the institution of worship as far as Submitters are concerned.

The third question evokes the above-mentioned fear of the prescriptive vacuum: "Suppose we cease to use hadtih as a source of information about the Prophet, his life, and his career. Then we notice that the Quran itself says very little about the Prophet's life. It also says nothing about how the Quran was compiled. The historicity of the Quran is based on hadiths."

The first assumption here is that the Quran's validity is supported solely by historical evidence. While the answer to this assumption is obvious to those truly familiar with the Quran, it is worth noting that the historicity of the Quran is not an issue to those who already accept it as the Word of God. To them, the Quran is the first truth, against which everything else must be compared. Nor does the Quran depend on the opinions of historians to give it importance. Submitters have already gone through the process of assessing its validity, whether on the basis of what they had learned about its historicity or on the basis of other evidence, such as the patient confirmation of the truth of the miraculous code embedded in its text. No longer finding it necessary to assess the veracity of the Quran, they now seek only to obey it.

Finally, there are even bolder assumptions underlying the third question than those I have mentioned. By asserting that "the Quran itself says very little about the Prophet's life" and that it says "nothing about how the Quran was compiled," the questioner assumes that the information that the Quran leaves out is nevertheless vital to our spirituality. (One might ask how the questioner knows that this information is vital, does it say so in a hadith?) The Quran, as we know, is "fully detailed" (6:114). What this tells us is that it is not up to us to decide what the Quran should tell us. If a given issue is truly vital to our spirituality, we will find it addressed in the Quran. If it is not vital, we should not expect to find it there.

Finally, if what is lacking from the Quranic text, how to light a fire, how to bake a cake, how to tie our shoes, really concerns us then let me just add that our role as Submitters is not merely to follow a list of prescriptions, but to come to understand the wisdom behind them through our observance of them. With this wisdom, which increases over time as long as we keep up our genuine worship, we become progressively more capable of finding the answers to life?s questions ourselves. Indeed, God could merely have given us a list of rules to follow (and it would be no exaggeration to say that may "Muslims" perceive Islam in precisely this way!). The Word of God, on the contrary, is designed to see to our evolution as human beings, not to set up a society of robots who cannot think for themselves.

If the Quran, the Word of God, alone is not enough for us, then we should consider whether we can truly identify ourselves as slaves of God, followers of the examples of Abraham and Muhammad. Perhaps all debates should begin with this assumption: that the Quran alone is sufficient as a criterion against which to discuss anything anyone proposes with respect to worship, exactly as it it written, without footnotes.

Richard Steven Voss


Soo yo can see the historicity of the Koran is not an issue. It does not depend to me how the Koran but I only care about who its author is. As long as their is no reason(for me) to believe its a human effort anything else is not relevant. Personally any person who reads the Koran carefully can easily see its Divine nature. Just like the Bible. Even if the Bible is a collection of writings it does feel like its Divine just not consistently like the Koran.

Its hard to see any human hand in it. Something obvious would have come up by know like historic error or linguistic errors or scientific errors or informational errors. The language and format of the Koran is unique.

The problem with history is that its OK as a big picture, but when you start looking for specific details history is not reliable. Unless we find major archeological findings that gives us good information that is first hand, you would continue to find conflicting reports about history. The thing I found out is its hard to trust people and what they say. I would much rather look for evidence of objects like coins, paintings or official writings such as court orders or treaties. Look at the difference between historians about Ancient Egypt or Babylon. Inscriptions on walls or statutes or even coins and pottery are more reliable.