The Historical Qur'an

[jake-the-peg]

Watching the Channel 4 program the other night was rather dull until 90 minutes in there was a facinating piece.

Apparently in 1972 in Yemen a large quantity of manuscripts were found that were identified as fragments of the oldest Qur'ans known.

(item about them here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/koran )

Crucially these showed significant differences from the official text.

The Qur'an is generally considerred the absolute unchanged literal word of God - yet how can that be if early copies were different?

Could we actually see a split in Islam between. Literalists and non literalists the way we do in Christianity?

Bearing in mind that the Qur'an is not actually one of the 5 pillars of Islam, could a Muslim question the absolute literal truth of the Qur'an and still be a Muslim in the same way that a Christian can with the Bible?

[boogieboogie]

Didn't Hindu's and Muslim's split? So it may be possible. Muslims I've experienced won't hear a word of contradiction, are in denial of anything that contrast with there account,so I imagine they'll brush it under the carpet not have another word said about it, declair it blasphoemus.

[naomi24]

I watched that, Jake. The problem seems to be that, somewhat like Christians with the Bible, Muslims interpret the Koran in different ways - and each of them believe that their interpretation is the literal truth - and so they cannot question it. This is why we have some Muslims saying that Islam is a religion of peace, and meaning it, and others prepared to kill the infidel by turning themselves into human bombs. However, bearing in mind the discovery of those ancient manuscripts, it's now evident that no Koran in the world is true to the original message.

Incidentally, it was interesting to note that 30 years ago, the women of Cairo were very westernised and never covered their faces or their hair, and yet now it's very rare to see a woman in Cairo without a veil. A very definite shift in culture.

[keyplus90]

boogieboogie
Wed 16/07/08
17:59 Didn't Hindu's and Muslim's split?


This is one of the most hilarious statement I have ever heard. Boogie I have no idea what to say so I will leave it.

As far as I am aware Quran was completed in a book form during the life of Muhammad (pbuh). During the time of Caliph Usman (Othman) he borrowed the copy from Muhammad�s (pbuh) wife and made four identical copies. Two of those copies are still present in this very world.

These found might be those scripts which people individually have at that time. There are millions people who know Quran by heart cover to cover. That is same as the one present in the museum to date. But one thing Muslims can not change is the people's different views and opinions.

http://www.thetruecall.com/home/modules.php?na me=News&file=article&sid=269

[123everton]

That was a little unkind K 90.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, did you watch that programme on Monday? It seems that ancient manuscripts have been found that pre-date all existing texts - and they differ significantly from the Koran as we now know it. It really is worth checking out. Have a look at Jake's link.

[WaldoMcFroog]

As we all know very well, where reality differs from a religious text, it is always reality which is wrong and never the text, regardless of how utterly absurd said text might be.

Here endeth today's lesson.

[jake-the-peg]

OK so as I understand it from that article Orthadox Islam would most likely consider the Yemeni document one of the personal and incorrect versions referred to in point 4.

Of course neither Koran in Istanbul nor in tashkent is actually complete I think only about 1/3 of each survives.

I don't think either has been carbon dated and the nature of the Kufi script has led some (admittedly non muslim) scholars to suggest a date nearer the end of the eigth century. - So the Yemeni fragments are the oldest positively dated fragments.


But all of that is really less importantant to the actual question.

If the Qu'ran is unquestionable in Islam (and that seems to be what I hear) why is it not actually one of the 5 pillars of Islam?

And could someone believe that there were flaws in the Qu'ran and still be a muslim?

[keyplus90]

Naomi � I have read Jake�s link. As I said during the life of Muhammad (pbuh) Quran was not written on an A4 or A5. It was on stones, bones, rags, leafs and so on. I am sure all of you know about this in detail so I would leave it. I have not seen it myself as yet, but well known scholars and historians say that the copies of Quran in Istanbul and Tashkent are complete and not 1/3 and have been there over the history since the time of 3rd Caliph Usman (Uthman).

About your actual question. My personal feeling is that Quran tells you about all 5 pillars that you have to believe or act upon to be a Muslim. Quran explains the benefits and draw backs of do�s and don�ts. So although Quran is not among 5 pillars but without it how people would have known about these 5 pillars of Islam?

Then as all the Muslims believe is the Sunnah of Muhammad (pbuh). For example Salah (5 times Prayer) Quran speaks about it but does not tell you any where how to perform it. That comes from life of Muhammad (pbuh).

Finally I would say that if you believe that Quran is wrong then you are not Muslim because all your faith is based on it.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, the programme said that the Koran wasn't actually collated until 70 years after the death of Mohammed. Taking that into account, and the fact that the ancient manuscripts are the oldest version of the Koran ever found, and differ significantly to the Koran we know today, would you consider that some elements of the Koran as we know it may be incorrect?

..........I would say that if you believe that Quran is wrong then you are not Muslim because all your faith is based on it.

This is where the confusion lies. The suicide bomber says he's Muslim, and the peaceful man says he's Muslim. So who is the true Muslim? They all think they're right - a bit like the Christians really.

[whiffey]

I am completely fascinated by 'versions' of religious documents, primarily by biblical ones of course, but it's hardly surprising that multiple copies of the Koran should exist, and probably the differences between them would hardly affect the fundamental tenets of the faith.

I am regularly emailed by a site that holds the King James bible as the inerrant word of God. It will take a verse from KJV, then compare with what it calls errant other versions (NIV, NEB, ESV etc). In NO case so far have I seen anything that alters the bases of Christianity, which when you kick silly church dogma aside, are starkly simple. I'll bet the same applies to Islam.

[sexy,russian]

I've just gained a first class degree in theology and can assure you that the Quran is not the word of God but Muslims will continue to believe it is no matter what the evidence against it is

[keyplus90]

First of all everything written in Arabic is not Quran. Now a days you can find verses from Bible written in Arabic and anyone who does not compare it or see what part is it of Quran may take it as Quran. But all you have to do is to take a copy of the Quran in one hand and compare it with that. What the programme say about the collection of Quran can not be necessarily 100% correct either. History is full of things later to be found cooked stories. I hope these manuscripts are not even older that the birth of Muhammad (pbuh). As I said if the historians are saying that copies of Quran in Istanbul & Tashkent are the same since the time of Usman (pbuh) then they must have some sort of evidence or do you think they are saying that only due to the faith as all of the historians might not be Muslims.

As far the suicide bombing is concerned then there is nothing written in Quran about that so it has nothing to do with Quran. Scholars have different views on the act itself. Few say that it is completely unacceptable as suicide is haram (forbidden) in Islam, and few say there is a difference in suicide and suicide attack and it is ok if carried out against invading army (eg Iraq) as there has never been a suicide attack in Iraq ever before American invasion. In Israel as last 60 years no one gave any attention towards Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas and killing their children as shooting hobby by the Israeli army (even few western news reporter admitted that too), until they started suicide attacks. After all what they have apart from their bodies against an army which has every possible weapon in the world given by their Godfather including nuclear weapons.

[Quinlad]

I only watched this last night. Really, really interesting.

And nice to see the cheerier side of Islam getting a fair showing.

Clearly they're not all raving fundamentalists. That Sheikh Abdul guy came out with a nice line for those who claim their god is more valid than their neighbour's.

"Who are we to say that one is better? You have your religion and I have mine."

[jake-the-peg]

Thank you for that Keyplus I see the point about the pillars.

Here is the UNESCO nomination form for the Qu'ran at Taskent citing 250 pages and describing it as partial
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3 931&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

This BBC article describes it as partial
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/ 4581684.stm and is where I got the figure of 1/3rd from

I think it covers Saura 2 -43

This islamic website suggests it is younger

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Ms s/

A folio from a Qur'anic manuscript in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, commonly attributed to caliph �Uthman, has recently been subject to radiocarbon tests at Oxford, United Kingdom. Although the dates generated by this radiometric technique at either confidence level do not rule out the possibility that this manuscript was produced in �Uthman's time, palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd century hijra) date.

We have here the earliest complete Qu'ran claimed at 393 AH
http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/quran /quran_index.html

I've not yet come across anywhere claiming that they are complete

[naomi24]

sexy,russian - yes, and I'm the Virgin Mary.

Keyplus, I'm not disputing the problems in the middle east, and I'm sure the people who have examined these old texts know what they are examining. I was simply asking whether in the light of this discovery, you would consider that sections of the Koran could possibly be incorrect?

I think your reply regarding suicide bombers answers the rest of my question. It would appear that even those who call themselves peace-loving Muslims justify that, and so there is no difference between the beliefs that they hold and the beliefs that those who kill themselves for their cause hold. They are all Muslim. Am I correct?

[naomi24]

What's your knowledge of the subject, then Tetjam. Educate us.

[keyplus90]

You see one thing where people go wrong about Islam is that they think what is said is said. Islam has basic beliefs which have been and will be unchanged. Then there are things whish are secondary like suicide bombing etc. People compare Islam and Quran with Bible and Christianity. Whereas it is in Bible that it was for the People of Israel at then, and even Jesus (pbuh) said that he was sent for the people of Israel. Islam and Quran (I am not forcing anyone to believe) was revealed forever and that is the reason behind what I said basics can not be changed but few things have been there for debate by the well versed knowledgeable scholars. That is known as Ijtihad (reformation) according to the change in the time. Of course there are chances that two people will not agree on one thing. So according to Muhammad (pbuh) who ever thinks (for Ijtiha) with fair intention he would be rewarded by God. Even the one who does not get to the right decision would not be blamed as their intention was to tell people about something they did not know on the basis of their knowledge.

Verdict about suicide bombing (not against innocent) is one of these things as it appeared in the modern time and there are no guidelines any where.

As for the correctness of the Quran, I would welcome any sincere and unbiased attempt about the correctness as it will clear people�s mind, because I am sure more they would look into it more people will believe in it.

[naomi24]

Thanks for that Keyplus. I think it's fair to say that many of us here own, and have read, both the Bible and the Koran, and see discrepancies in both, so I don't think there's much chance of many converting to Islam - or to Christianity come to that.

[keyplus90]

But lets not forget one thing about Quran Naomi - Since the Quran was revealed over the period of 23 Years there have been people since that time who remembered Quran by heart from cover to cover and this is the case to this very date. There has never been a time when there were non with that ability. So in other words there have always been people from day one who remembered Quran word to word. So even if we assume that at some stage Quran completely disappeared from the face of the earth, it would not have been difficult to compile it again without any discrepancy.

Now someone may argue with that as they can easily mix the things up. But Arabs were well known about their memory. And actually there have been incidents in regard to Hadith that if someone brought in written copy, the collectors of hadith rejected that as according to them that person wrote it because he was unable to remember and therefore it can not be trusted. Because in those days writing was not like we know now.

I am not sure if there have been many people who remember whole Bible by heart since the time of Jesus (pbuh).