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
