Author Topic: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript  (Read 21579 times)

mr. humble

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 177
  • Karma +1/-0
"So have Patience(O Mohammad)! Allah's promise is the very truth, and let not those who have uncertainty make you impatient."
-Surah 30:60 (Translation from M.M. Pickthall)

L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #21 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

L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #22 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

L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #23 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

L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #24 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.

L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #25 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

L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #26 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

L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #27 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.


L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #28 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. 

L.Hu

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript
« Reply #29 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.