> Debate Discussion on Preservation of the Qur'an

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by optimist

Here members are mixing preservation of Quran with preservation of hadiths. This is ridiculous. The whole of the Quran, had been carefully written down and arranged in a sequence as directed by the Prophet himself before his demise. There were hundreds of Sahabas who had memmorised the entire Quran, from beginning till end, lived during the life time of the prophet. During the first caliph Abu Bakr's administration, Abu Bakr, on taking over the administration of the republic as the first Commander of the Faithful, ordered the Prophet's secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit, to compile the Qur'an into book form. Zaid had also been Prophet’s scribe all during his entire prophetic life and made himself available round the clock to record the Verses of the Qur'an as and when it is revealed. Zaid’s personal supervision and Ameer Abu Bakr Siddiq’s proclamation that it is the authentic and original copy of Al Qur'an in its entirety, is the most authentic testimony. The Islamic republic had expanded far and wide beyond the Arabian Peninsula by the time Umar al Farooq took over the administration. He ordered four copies of the Holy Book to be made and the responsibility was placed again on Zaid ibn Thabit. These were again declared as true copies and were sent out to regional Capitals of the republic. When the third Caliph, Uthman bin Aff'an launched a programme to have one hundred copies made and certified personally by him. These copies were made with the diacritical marks so that non-Arabs can also read with correct phonetics. All these were manuscript copies duly certified by the Caliph himself. We are lucky that two copies of the original manuscripts out of the four made at the instance of Ameer Umar are available today with us. One copy is available in the Topkapi museum in Istanbul and the other in the Museum at Tashkent. All the copies of now circulated all over the world carry the certificate of Zaid ibn Thabit and Ameer Uthman to the effect that it is the true reproduction of the original. Thus, the copy of the Holy Qur'an with us today fully satisfies the requirements of a well-corroborated text.

It is a fair point to make this distinction between Qu'ran and hadith and well made. However, as far as preservation is concerned the traditions you mention are not the only ones although they are the ones mostly cited. One has to ask:

1. Why if all these hundreds memorized did none of them ever make a mistake?

2. Did Zaid consult all these hundreds before making his 'official' copy?

3. What happened to all the copies before that?

4. I have not see anywhere a scholarly article that proves beyond doubt that these two copies you speak of are original metropolitan copies dated from Ziad's time. Can you be a bit more precise, the Topkapi has about 1,600 ancient Qu'rans so which one are you talking about?

5. If you look at Al-Azami's book "The History of the Qu'ranic Text" (ISBN 978 1872 531656), regarded by many Muslims as a definitive work he used 'the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world' see page xxi. If words mean anything one presumes there are texts that are not accurate. If you think it worthwhile we could discuss Azami's book?

[optimist]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

1. Why if all these hundreds memorized did none of them ever make a mistake?
2. Did Zaid consult all these hundreds before making his 'official' copy?

I will answer these two points for the time being.

Firstly, I do not subscribe to the view that the Quran was not available during the prophet's time in written book form. And also according my understanding there is no basis in the statement that the compilation of the Quran was made depending on the reliability and memory of Sahabas (as some people claim). It is just a false propaganda to say that the prophet did not leave the Quran with his followers in its present form.

Here is evidence from Quran which will prove that the Quran was available in the book form during the lifetime of the prophet.

The Quran has used the word <Kitab 'book' for itself at so many places. Scattered written sheets of paper are never called a book. A book is a treatise written on a number of sheets which are fastened together. After 'Sura Fateha' the opening chapter, the Quranic text begins with the following verse-

"Here is the book, in it there is no ambiguity, uncertainty or psychological complex. It is a guidance to those who save themselves from the consequences of going against the Divine laws." (2:1)

At hundreds of other places the Quran has called itself a book in different contexts. The Quran is a book which is a collection of various "Sura" chapters. Thus in support of the truth contained therein, the Quran challenges the vain-glorious opponents of the prophet who doubted the revelation of the Quran and said that he (Muhammad) composed the verses himself, in the following words:

'Or do they say, "He forged it"? Say: "Bring then a Sura like onto it." (10:38)

"Or they may say, "He forged it". Say, "Bring you then ten Suras forged like unto it." (11:13)

Again it is repeated:

""Say: "If the whole of mankind both civilised and uncivilised were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support." (17:88)

Thus the whole world is challenged to produce a book like this and it has not been able to produce one. Its beauty, standard and purity is a proof by itself that it is a book revealed by Allah and compiled by one to whom it was revealed.

The Quran is a book which was not only written but also rehearsed side by side with its gradual descent. Thus it is said:

"Recite from the book what has been revealed to you." (29:45)

"And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the book of thy Rabb: None can change His words." (18:27)

But in spite of all this, when the non-believers persisted in their opposition to the Quran, they were questioned in the following words:

"Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the book which is rehearsed to them?" (29:51)

Again it is said:

"Or have you a book through which you learn?" (68:37)

"Shall I seek for judge other than God? When it is He Who has sent unto you the book explained in detail." (6:114)

"This is the book whose verses are explained in detail (so that there remains no ambiguity); a Quran whose language is clear and explicit for men of knowledge." (41:3)

Thus the Quran is preserved in the form of a book and only those people can be benefited by it who have a clean and unbiased mind, free from prejudice and fixed notions.

"Furthermore I call to witness the location of the heavenly bodies and that indeed is a mighty witness if you but know that this is indeed the Quran, which benefits humanity by raising its stature without lowering its dignity, in a book well guarded which none shall touch (or be benefited) but those who are clean (in body, mind, thought and attention); a revelation from the Sustainer of the universe." (56:75-80)

The Quran describes further the distinctive marks of the scribes who used to write the Quran in the presence of Muhammad. Thus it is said:

“Nay but it (the Quran) is indeed a message of instruction. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance that it is in papers held in great honour, exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy, (written) by the hands of scribes, honourable, pious and just." (80:11-16)

It is abundantly clear from the above verses that the Quran was dictated, as soon as it is was revealed to the prophet, to the scribes who were honourable, pious and just. Thus the question of any addition, alteration or invention does not arise. This also indicates that the verses of the book had a regular order and sequence, so they could be rehearsed by the prophet and his followers.

The practice of learning the Quran by heart was prevalent during the days of prophet and still continues from the last 14 centuries. This is a clear proof that the verses of the Quran were already arranged in a given order and sequence during the time of the prophet himself in a book form. The prophet used to dictate the revealed verses to his companions immediately after they were revealed and this become a regular practice.

Then comes the great proclamation:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the message and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (15:9)

Again it is said:

"..Indeed it is a book of exalted power (whose prescribed way of life is bound to dominate). No falsehood can approach it, from before or behind it (i.e., openly or secretly). It is sent down by One full of wisdom and worthy of praise." (41:41-42)

Thus the Quranic text has been guarded eternally from corruptions, inventions and accretions, even if the whole world is bent upon destroying it.

To allege that the Quran, after it was revealed, was left uncared for, in a haphazard manner, scattered on pieces of stones, bones and leaves etc is a blasphemy. In the words of the Quran itself-

(1) It is not a forged book.

(2) It is a confirmation of the revelation which went before it and is a criterion of differentiation between right and wrong.

(3) It places things related to human problems in an orderly manner, in correct perspective and in exact proportion.

(4) It is a book which discloses hidden realities of life.

(5) It is a constructive book.

(6) It is a book whose code of life promotes preservation, stability, growth and manifestation of human personality as well as society.

(7) It is a book which explains itself.

(8) It is not poetry (false, futile, and imaginary description).

(9) It is a book whose laws are based on permanent values.

Can a revealed book of this standard which, according to the Quran itself, was dictated gradually and in bits, simultaneous with its revelation, to the most honourable and pious scribes who were men of great integrity: and then copied, learnt by heart and rehearsed daily by a large number of believers, and whose safety Allah took upon Himself, be said to have been left uncared for?

[optimist]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

4. I have not see anywhere a scholarly article that proves beyond doubt that these two copies you speak of are original metropolitan copies dated from Ziad's time. Can you be a bit more precise, the Topkapi has about 1,600 ancient Qu'rans so which one are you talking about?

Source: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/18/#_ftn14429

“The historical credibility of the Quran is further established by the fact that one of the copies sent out by the Caliph Uthman is still in existence today. It lies in the Museum of the City of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, Central Asia.[11] According to Memory of the World Program, UNESCO, an arm of the United Nations, ‘it is the definitive version, known as the Mushaf of Uthman."[12]

[11] Yusuf Ibrahim al-Nur, Ma’ al-Masaahif, Dubai: Dar al-Manar, 1st ed., 1993, p.117; Isma’il Makhdum, Tarikh al-Mushaf al-Uthmani fi Tashqand, Tashkent: Al-Idara al-Diniya, 1971, p.22ff.

12] (UNESCO - Homepage | unesco.org | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.)

I. Mendelsohn, “The Columbia University Copy Of The Samarqand Kufic Quran”, The Moslem World, 1940, p. 357-358.

A. Jeffery & I. Mendelsohn, “The Orthography Of The Samarqand Quran Codex”, Journal Of The American Oriental Society, 1942, Volume 62, pp. 175-195.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by optimist

Source: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/18/#_ftn14429

“The historical credibility of the Quran is further established by the fact that one of the copies sent out by the Caliph Uthman is still in existence today. It lies in the Museum of the City of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, Central Asia.[11] According to Memory of the World Program, UNESCO, an arm of the United Nations, ‘it is the definitive version, known as the Mushaf of Uthman."[12]

[11] Yusuf Ibrahim al-Nur, Ma’ al-Masaahif, Dubai: Dar al-Manar, 1st ed., 1993, p.117; Isma’il Makhdum, Tarikh al-Mushaf al-Uthmani fi Tashqand, Tashkent: Al-Idara al-Diniya, 1971, p.22ff.

12] (UNESCO - Homepage | unesco.org | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.)

I. Mendelsohn, “The Columbia University Copy Of The Samarqand Kufic Quran”, The Moslem World, 1940, p. 357-358.

A. Jeffery & I. Mendelsohn, “The Orthography Of The Samarqand Quran Codex”, Journal Of The American Oriental Society, 1942, Volume 62, pp. 175-195.

It seem obvious you have not actually read the Mendelsohn article so let me just give you a few quotes and you will see how shaky your claim is that it was one of the metropolitan copies.

The local legend regarding this Codex is that it was brought to Samarqand by Khoja Akhrar himself, when he removed there from Tashkent, and when his Mosque was built there this venerable Codex was placed therein.

He chose the ancient [Khoja Akhrar] Qur'an said to have belonged to the third Caliph 'Uthman, and indeed to have been the copy which he was reading when he was murdered, the stains of his blood being visible on the pages which were open at the moment the murderers attacked him.

Unfortunately we are now dependent entirely on the Pissareff facsimile, as the original Codex has disappeared

Originally the Codex was a complete Qur'an, written .... Only 353 folios were left, .... many folios had been damaged by dampness, and others were worn, ... Sixty-nine folios, which were missing entirely

... where the parchment leaves have been mended to a greater or lesser extent with paper patches, the patching does not show up in the facsimile, and though it is sometimes possible to distinguish the later hand which filled in the writing on these patches, there yet remains an element of uncertainty which is unfortunate but inescapable.

Thus we shall be safe in assigning the Codex to some centre in Iraq, probably Kufa early in the third Islamic century.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Thus we shall be safe in assigning the Codex to some centre in Iraq, probably Kufa early in the third Islamic century.

Well, I am not for an agruement with you as to exactly which period this Codex belongs to. If you have an academic interest you can make a research on this subject. I rely on the promise of Allah himself in the Quran, His will to protect the Quran from any curruption.

“Verily, We have revealed the Reminder (Quran), and verily We shall preserve it.” (Quran 15:9)

Even many non Muslims who has studied this issue have concluded that Quran remained so pure a text all along.

Sir William Muir states, “There is probably no other book in the world which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text.” (Sir William Muir, Life of Mohamet, London, 1894, Vol.1, Introduction)

John Burton, at the end of his substantial work on the Quran’s compilation, states that the Quran as we have it today is: “…the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet…. What we have today in our hands is the mushaf of Muhammad. (John Burton, The Collection of the Quran, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977, p.239-40.)

Kenneth Cragg describes the transmission of the Quran from the time of revelation to today as occurring in “an unbroken living sequence of devotion.” (Kenneth Cragg, The Mind of the Quran, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973, p.26.)

Schwally concurs that:“As far as the various pieces of revelation are concerned, we may be confident that their text has been generally transmitted exactly as it was found in the Prophet’s legacy.” (Schwally, Geschichte des Qorans, Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,1909-38, Vol.2, p.120.)

“Nay but it (the Quran) is indeed a message of instruction. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance that it is in papers held in great honour, exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy, (written) by the hands of scribes, honourable, pious and just." (80:11-16)

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

1. Why if all these hundreds memorized did none of them ever make a mistake?

because they were arabs, not americans. this statment is not with regard to their ethnicity, but the quality of brain usage and memory overall

2. Did Zaid consult all these hundreds before making his 'official' copy?

yes, he consulted with the senior companions, scores of them

3. What happened to all the copies before that?

the copies were burned because they had no tashkeel marks. What that means is that non arabs could not decipher between the letter "ta" with "ba" or "tha" or "ya". So in order to ENSURE that the recitation of all non arabs MATCHED the arabs, they formed the tashkeel system in order to preserve the recitation of it.

5.

If you look at Al-Azami's book "The History of the Qu'ranic Text" (ISBN 978 1872 531656), regarded by many Muslims as a definitive work he used 'the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world' see page xxi. If words mean anything one presumes there are texts that are not accurate. If you think it worthwhile we could discuss Azami's book?

yes, words do mean what they convey and if Azami conveyed these words, then apparently he was incorrect in his word usage and therefore it has to be rendered inaccurate. In the context of his book, he was trying to convey the meaning of "the most relied upon" and most likely, he used an incorrect term to try to convey what he meant. that happens, people are not infallible, they make mistakes in their conveyance of what they mean by using wrong words.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by optimist

Well, I am not for an agruement with you as to exactly which period this Codex belongs to. If you have an academic interest you can make a research on this subject. I rely on the promise of Allah himself in the Quran, His will to protect the Quran from any curruption.
Well, I am not for an agruement with you as to exactly which period this Codex belongs to. If you have an academic interest you can make a research on this subject. I rely on the promise of Allah himself in the Quran, His will to protect the Quran from any curruption.

Well, I am not for an agruement with you as to exactly which period this Codex belongs to. If you have an academic interest you can make a research on this subject. I rely on the promise of Allah himself in the Quran, His will to protect the Quran from any curruption.

You must do as you please but if you cite sources that you have not read then you are being deliberately disingenuous. You cited Mendelssohn and I shown ed by quotations from his paper that the Tashkent Qu'ran is not an early one. I am also annoyed that you quote part of my post as if it was something I said when clearly it is a quote from the Mendelssohn paper.

I nave done the research, I have a copy of the paper and in future I suggest you take your own advice.

Would you like me now to go through all your other quotes - you have not read the full articles have you?

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

because they were arabs, not americans. this statment is not with regard to their ethnicity, but the quality of brain usage and memory overall

yes, he consulted with the senior companions, scores of them

the copies were burned because they had no tashkeel marks. What that means is that non arabs could not decipher between the letter "ta" with "ba" or "tha" or "ya". So in order to ENSURE that the recitation of all non arabs MATCHED the arabs, they formed the tashkeel system in order to preserve the recitation of it.

yes, words do mean what they convey and if Azami conveyed these words, then apparently he was incorrect in his word usage and therefore it has to be rendered inaccurate. In the context of his book, he was trying to convey the meaning of "the most relied upon" and most likely, he used an incorrect term to try to convey what he meant. that happens, people are not infallible, they make mistakes in their conveyance of what they mean by using wrong words.

Interesting answer. I have heard that some people how phenomena memories but I cannot see that Arabs are far superior to anyone else - just as a matter of interest can you point to any scientific studies that proves or hints at this. I follow closely advances in brain research and I cannot recall anything like this.

I thought that the vowel marking was not perfected until the 9th century? IN fact the Mendelssohn papers listed in another post state that in that copy there are almost no marks so if what you say is true then it is beyond doubt that it is not an Uthman codex - it could of course be earlier but that is also doubtful.

Well you might be right about Azami but his Islamic qualifications are of the best so you put me in a quandary - should I trust the work of one of the worlds leading scholars of hadith, a Cambridge PhD, professor emeritus at King Saud University, etc etc or you? (have you read the book?)

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Interesting answer. I have heard that some people how phenomena memories but I cannot see that Arabs are far superior to anyone else - just as a matter of interest can you point to any scientific studies that proves or hints at this. I follow closely advances in brain research and I cannot recall anything like this.

its empirical not from the route of science but one of experiential encounter that I would have to call amplified memory power.
It is extraordinary for anyone to hear a poem of a thousand vs one time and repeat it exactly as it was recited. For the Arabs, that was not extraordinary it was normal. That same methodological manuevering was then adopted by the hadeeth specialist. That is why for the early Muslims, it was no big thing to have 50 or 100 thousand hadeeth memorized along with the chain for each hadeeth.

I thought that the vowel marking was not perfected until the 9th century? IN fact the Mendelssohn papers listed in another post state that in that copy there are almost no marks so if what you say is true then it is beyond doubt that it is not an Uthman codex - it could of course be earlier but that is also doubtful.

when I get the chance I will be able to cite you a more lengthy clarification on the topic.

Well you might be right about Azami but his Islamic qualifications are of the best so you put me in a quandary - should I trust the work of one of the worlds leading scholars of hadith, a Cambridge PhD, professor emeritus at King Saud University, etc etc or you? (have you read the book?)

yeah, you should trust the work of azami. That has nothing to do with te fact that every single author on the planet has an error in their work, most of thr time there are multiple errors. There is no human on earth who is infallible. Even al-azami himself wil never admit that he does not a mistake in his book.

All I'm saying is that IF azami stated this, then is was clearly a linguistical error of articulation.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

You must do as you please but if you cite sources that you have not read then you are being deliberately disingenuous. You cited Mendelssohn and I shown ed by quotations from his paper that the Tashkent Qu'ran is not an early one. I am also annoyed that you quote part of my post as if it was something I said when clearly it is a quote from the Mendelssohn paper.

I nave done the research, I have a copy of the paper and in future I suggest you take your own advice.

Would you like me now to go through all your other quotes - you have not read the full articles have you?

Actually, I have no problem to accept it as true if it could be scientifically proved this Codex belongs to Islamic third century. I was quoting from other works and someone had given reference Mendelssohn paper. I have not read his paper. Well, these two copies as belonging to Uthman's peroiod is reported by many people in different articles. I do not know what is the scientific proof for this claim. I hope the following links could be of help for you.

The Qur'anic Manuscripts
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

The “Qur'ān Of Uthmān” At Tashkent (Samarqand), Uzbekistan, From 2nd Century Hijra
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html

The “Qur'ān Of Uthmān” At The Topkapi Museum, Istanbul, Turkey, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html#