Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript

[maxq]

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.

[L.Hu]

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.

[maxq]

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.

[L.Hu]

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.

[maxq]

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.

[L.Hu]

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

[L.Hu]

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.

[Muslimtruthrevealed]

..........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.

[L.Hu]

I desire more evidence. More evidence from Quran

[Muslimtruthrevealed]

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.