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?

[naomi24]

Keyplus, that is an excellent point and one well worth serious consideration. My initial thought is this. Since ancient manuscripts that differ significantly from the Koran we know today have been discovered, I suspect that people began memorising the text only after it was edited and produced in its current form, and only after Islam was firmly established. There are, without doubt, discrepancies between the ancient manuscripts and the current text, so what other explanation can there be?

[keyplus90]

As I said earlier everything in Arabic is not Quran. However if these manuscripts are different from the Quran known today then there are two possibilities.

1 - These might not be part of Quran and something else and that is again due to the fact that there has never been a period when there were no people who knew Quran by heart, so that chain has never ever been broken. People have tried to make changes in Quran but it did not work due to this fact. Even today you would see people almost every where in Muslim community who you read Quran to and any where if there is anything wrong they would tell you straight away even without looking at it.

2 - Only other possibility is that these might be the part of those verses which of course at that time were recited by Muhammad (pbuh) and written by few very prominent and appointed companions. But there were other people who copied from those people and perhaps tried to change it.

For that perhaps during the life of Muhammad (pbuh) he himself had collected all of Quran from his appointed companions, verified and arranged the complete Quran in present order. Many people get confused because of vowels ( I would call it puctuation rather) added later on to make it easier for non Arabs like us. Otherwise without that it was difficult to pronounce properly. But that did not change any wordings.

[naomi24]

Quran was not written on an A4 or A5. It was on stones, bones, rags, leafs

Yes, and until all the information written on the stones, bones, rags and leaves was written into one tome, and the religion was established, people wouldn't have had access to their content.

But there were other people who copied from those people and perhaps tried to change it.

That's my point. The experts seem to be in no doubt that these manuscripts form the oldest example of the Koran in existence. Therefore, if they are the oldest, and their content differs from the Koran we know today, they must have been changed when they were copied. Do you see that?

[keyplus90]

Ok they were changed.

[naomi24]

The thing is, Keyplus, realistically, if the text has been changed, then it means that other men interfered with the original version, and the Koran we now have is not as Mohammed intended it to be. Just as an example, we talked about incitement to violence in the Koran, but since much of it contains words of wisdom, for all we know that incitement to violence may have been added at a later date to suit someones political ends. The orignal may only have contained words of peace. Does the thought of that bother you?

[Theland1]

It should bother you KP

[keyplus90]

It does not bother me at all. As I know Arabs did not start writing in Arabic only when Quran came. First of all these manuscripts have to be analysed by Muslims scholars if any instead of Germans. Secondly as you are saying incitement to violence then that is the difference between Christianity and Islam. Islam does not teach turning your other cheek for another slap. Islam tells that if someone attacks, you should retaliate, however if that person gives up then you should back off. People who say Quran teaches violence always quote verses out of context.

So as I said, people knew complete Quran by heart during the time of Muhammad (pbuh). The compilation of Quran came afterward for the people to come verified by the people at that time.

As far as propaganda is concerned, then there is nothing new. You type word Islam on google and you would get 95% websites pretending to be Islamic but are in fact anti Islam. If these people spend half of the time, energy and sources to spread their own words instead of trying to pick bones about Islam. They may manage to hold the flow of people leaving their religion for a little while. But right now the fact is that Islam is spreading and flow of the spread is increasing as the propaganda against it is increasing. Allah�s will. Like it or not, but it is true.

[naomi24]

OK, Keyplus. Enough said.

[Theland1]

God help us.

[merejeans]

what does pbuh mean?

[Gromit]

When a muslim refers to a prophet by name they say "Praise be upon him".

[keyplus90]

I would say �peace be upon him�.