Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: earliest quran over 100 years after muham Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 2
Author Message
tawhid
 
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Quote tawhid Replybullet Posted: 01 April 2005 at 6:51am

Originally posted by Angel

yesha, tawhid was speaking to me as I hadn't replied

 angel im sorry...i saw your post...

ill respond after work

blessings to you angel!

tawhid

IP IP Logged
AhmadJoyia
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
Quote AhmadJoyia Replybullet Posted: 11 April 2005 at 5:29pm

Hi Tawhid,

Probably you need to know about your  own scriptures than worrying about the others. Preservation of Quran doesn't mean it must exist as in the bound form right from the time of its first written down. That is the reason Prophet Mohammad never had it in the bound form from its inception. What matters is variations in it from time to time or from places to places. Of course we can never ruled out the possibiltity of not having the complete first copy of Quran. But what is important is its textual accuracy. The claim or challange in the Quran still holds good. So instead of looking around it, it would be prudent to look directly into the challange. BTW, have you ever tried to open up your own pandora of gospels with regard to their authorship and their timeline origin? Do you still trust them to spend you whole life on them even though many human hands have played their role in evolving them to the present state? And you want to challange Quran? But on what basis? Classical case of anonymous authorship of gospel of John must not be forgotten in the minds before going any where else. Hope this shall keep the path straight for everyone of us. May God of Jesus bless us all. Amen.

IP IP Logged
Shams Zaman
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Quote Shams Zaman Replybullet Posted: 12 April 2005 at 12:38pm

This is not only a false claim but a cynical propaganda and not a new one. Such desprate pepole like Jhon Gilchrist once can't find any contradictions in Quran and can't reply to what those contradictions existing in Bible resort to these ignorant claims.

Regarding Quran was compiled 20 years after Muhammads (MPBUH) death or 100 years, who told them that? Indeed it is news for all those Muslims who have read Islamic History. Well sir Quran was compiled almost two years before the death of Prophet Muhammad. The sequence of Surahs or chapters was told by the Prophet and it was placed in the room of Lady Aysha (wife of Holy Prophet and daughter of first caliph Abu-Bakar). This happened in 9th year after Hijrat or Exodus from Makkah. The Quran was in proper written form but on palm leaves, piece of cloths etc in a bag. Prophet died in 11th year after exodus and there were some problems in the Islamic state outskirts. In one battle War of Yamama some 70 hufaz (who had memorized Quran by heart) died in one day so there was a need to re-write Quran on one medium in one binding.

During the first few years of the first Caliph Quran was written on one medium, binded and placed with Lady Aysha. Later once Islam was spreading in the times of Caliph Usman (the 3rd Caliph) it was felt to fix the writing font of Quran as there were reports that at some places people are reciting Quran with changed spellings. Like if you are in United States, you may find wrong spellings in British English so you will correct them. But once French would pronounce it he will change the pronunciation as well. In Arabic this would amount to changing the meaning altogether. So to avoid the pronunciation error by non-Arabs its Arabic text was re-fixed and all other copies with other fonts/text were destroyed. So the Quran of to days is the ditto copy of the Quran revealed on Muhammad 1400 years ago.   

The original copy which was arranged by Caliph Usman still lies in Turkey, Istanbul musem with the blood stains of his wife who once tried to save him got injured.

There is not a single word which is different from today's Quran and Mr. Jhon can try and visit the whole world to find two different copies of Quran.

Shams Zaman

Pakistan      

 

smszmn72@yahoo.cm
IP IP Logged
defenders
 
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 05 April 2005
Location: Bahrain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11
Quote defenders Replybullet Posted: 17 April 2005 at 9:14am

It was answered by our brothers

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Gilchrist/GilHaj jaj.html

Al-Hajjj, Kitb al-Mashif & Gilchrist

M S M Saifullah & Muhammad Ghoniem

Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.


There is a rule of thumb which one must learn. Orientalists opine and Missionaries quote them as gospel truth. This will get clearer as we go a bit further. Let us begin where this issue started from. The issue was first polemicised by cAbd al-Mash al-Kind in his apology and uttered by Emperor Leo.

As for your (book), you have already given us examples of such falsifications, and one knows, among others, of a certain Hajjj, named by you as the governer of Persia, who had men gathered up your ancient books, which he replaced by others composed by himself, according to his taste, and which he propagated everywhere in your nation, because it was easier by far to undertake such a task among the people speaking a single language. from this destruction, nevertheless, there escaped a few works of Abu Turab, for Hajjj could not make them disappear completely.[1]

In the footnotes, Jeffery mentions:

This is a rather confused reference to the work of al-Hajjj on the text of the Qur'n. the orthodox Muslim theory assumes that the text as canonized by cUthmn was the final canonization, but there is a reason to believe that a recension of cUthmn's text was made by the direction of al-Hajjj, so that we only know of the text of cUthmn in this later recension. This fact was apparently well known to oriental Christian writers, for al-Kindi in his apology, speaks of al-Hajjj not leaving a single codex that he did not gather up, and left out many things, and of which he sent out copies of his new recension, and directed his attention to destroying the older codices. This statement of al-Kind has always been looked at askance as a piece of Christian polemic.[2]

Jeffery also mentions about putting of diacritical marks in the Qur'nic text by al-Hajjj to make the reading proper because some ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs started mispronouncing the letters. To this Jeffery says:

It would thus seem that some revision of the text, as well as clarification by division and pointing, was undertaken by al-Hajjj, and that this was known to the Christians of that day, and naturally exagerrated by them for polemical purposes.[3]

Apart from such exagerration, the story of account attributed to Leo by Levond (or Ghevond) is mentioned as a later forgery to scandalize the question of al-Hajjj by some later Christian writer. So, we might as well stop here and dismiss all the allegations of John Gilchrist. But let us go further to expose his deceptive tactics.

In his book The Qur'n as Scripture, Arthur Jeffery relies on Kitb al-Mashif of Ibn Ab Dwd to say:

When we come to examine the accounts of the activity of al-Hajjj in this matter, however, we discover to our own surprise that the evidence points strongly to the fact that his work was not confined to fixing more precisely the text of the Qur'n by a set of points showing how it was to be read, but he seems to have made an entirely new recension of the Qur'n, having copies of his new text sent to the great metropolitan centres and ordering the destruction of earlier copies in existence there, much as cUthmn had done earlier. Moreover, this new text promulgated by al-Hajjj seems to have undergone more or less extensive alterations.[4]

Jeffery, in fact, proposed the minor recension theory by al-Hajjj. This was also propogated by other Orientalists as it can be seen from the examples below. The Orientalists take care in wording the issue whereas missionaries are as usual driven by crusade mentality to prove Islam wrong.

In the book Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period the author carefully states the issue of al-Hajjj without throwing light on the 'variant readings'.

However, this seems to be only a partial explanation of what happened. On the other hand we have the tradition in Ibn Abi-Da'ud that al-Hajjj was responsible for eleven changes in the consonantal text. If this is so, he is responsible for a minor recension at least. Against this we must set the evidence of early copies of the Qur'n that have survived. These show that for some considerable amount of time the new system was used sparingly and mainly in connection with the variants.[5]

John Gilchrist, a Christian Missionary, who quotes both the references Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period and The Qur'n As Scripture as "Contemporary Books on the Qur'n" does not even tell the whole story. In his book Jamc al-Qur'n: The Codification Of The Qur'n Text, Jeffery's skepticism "he seems" or "al-Hajjj seems" is quoted as reality.

The whole section continues to name each one of the amendments made by al-Hajjj so that the Qur'n text as we have it today is not only the 'Uthmanic text but also a subsequent minor recension of it by the Iraqi governor.[6]

And obviously, there is no mention of the Christian polemic concerning al-Hajjj. It is a frequent method employed by Christian Missionaries to supress the information which goes against their viewpoint.

The report which is frequently quoted is mentioned in Kitb al-Mashif of Ibn Ab Dwd which is available in Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'n: The Old Codices, 1937, Arthur Jeffery, E J Brill, Leiden.

It is important to remember that:

  • The isnad of the report is not verified yet.

  • The reasons for changes of 11 letters in cUthmn's(R) mushf by al-Hajjj are not clear. This is presumably either due to the mistakes made by the scribe(s) or preference of one Qir't over the other. It seems that the changes involved a combination of correction of the errors of the scribes as well as preference of one Qir'a over the other.

Further research needs to be done along these lines. The report as well as the translation is given below.



The translation of the report as follows:

Section: What al-Hajjj Had Changed in cUthmn's Mushf?

Ab Bakr said that it was there in the book of my father that a man told; I asked my father, "Who was that man?". He said,"Abbd ibn Suhaib told us from Awf ibn Ab Jamla that al-Hajjj bin Ysuf changed in cUthmn's mushf 11 letters". He said in

al-Baqarah (2:259) lam yatasanna wanzur without ha to lam yatasannah with ha.

and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shar'atan wa minhjan was changed to shir'atan wa minhjan

and in Ynus (10:22) huwal-ladh yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum

and in Ysuf (12:45) 'an-tkum bita'wilihi was changed to 'an onabbio'kum bita'wilihi

and in Mu'minn (23:85-89) sayaqlna lillh....lillh....lillh he made the two last occurrences allh....allh

and in as-Shucara in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhrajna and in the story of Lut (26:167) it was minal marjumna. It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjumna and in the story of Lut to minal mukhrajna

and in az-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamn baynahum mc ishahum and he changed it to macshatahum

and in al-ladhna kafar (47:15) min mcinn ghayri yasin was changed to min mcinn ghayri sin

and in al-Hadd (57:7) he changed fal-ladhna manu minkum wat-taqaw lahum 'ajrun kabr to minkum wa anfaqu.

and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) wa m huwa 'alal-ghaybi bidhann to bidann[7]

The Nature Of Changes Which Al-Hajjj Made

Interestingly enough this report does not provide any clue of the nature of changes that were made by al-Hajjj in the mushf of cUthmn(R). An in-depth study shows that they are the differences in the Qir't. A crash course on Qir't can be obtained from here.

So, we will deal with the changes which al-Hajjj made one by one, inshallah.

Dr. cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn did research on this issue for his Ph.D thesis in University of Imm Muhammad Ibn Saud. His thesis was published as a book from Riyadh in two volumes. The book is called Aar' al-Mustashriqn Hawl al-Qur'n al-Karm wa Tafsr: Dirsah Wa Naqd (The Views Of The Orientalists About The Holy Qur'n & Its Interpretation: Study and Criticism).

After quoting the hadth of Ibn Ab Dwd, Dr. Radwn mentions in his footnotes about the Qir't which the changes are associated with.

al-Baqarah (2:259) lam yatasanna wanzur without ha to lam yatasannah with ha.[8]

Comments: Both readings are among The Seven as it is mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in Hujjat al-Qir't, page 142/143, where he says that Hamzah and al-Kis'i read lam yatasanna without the letter ha in wasl (i.e., in case they didn't stop at the word yatasanna while reading) and the five other readings read yatasannah keeping the ha even when they didn't stop.[9]

and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shar'atan wa minhjan was changed to shir'atan wa minhjan.[10]

Comments: an-Nakh' and Ibn Waththb read with a fathah on the letter shn (i.e shar'atan) and the whole community of readers read shir'atan and I found nobody mentioning shar'atan.[11]

and in Ynus (10:22) huwal-ladh yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum[12]

Comments: Both readings are among The Seven. They were mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in his book Hujjat al-Qir't, page 329, where he says that Ibn 'Aamir read yunash-shirukum and the other readers read yusay-yirukum.[13]

and in Ysuf (12:45) 'an-tkum bita'wilihi was changed to 'an onabbio'kum bita'wilihi[14]

Comments: al-Hasan read 'an-tikom with a long hamzah having a fathah followed by the letter t having a kasrah and a silent y. And in wasl (i.e., when not stopping on the word), Nf' and Ab Jacfar read 'an onabbio'kum as it is mentioned by Ahmad cAbdul Ghany ad-Domyt in his book Ithfu Fodal' ilbashar Fil Qir't Ilarba'a 'Ashar, page 265.[15]

and in Mu'minn (23:85-89) sayaqlna lillh....lillh....lillh he made the two last occurrences allh....allh16]

Comments: All these readings are among The Seven as mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in Hujjat al-Qir't, page 490, where he says that Ab 'Aamir read allh...allh with an alif and the others read lillh...lillh and all readings agreed on the first occurrence (i.e., lillh). [17]

and in as-Shucara in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhrajna and in the story of Lut (26:167) it was minal marjumna. It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjumna and in the story of Lut to minal mukhrajna.[18]

Comment: I didn't find anybody who mentioned what the author has said.[19]

and in az-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamn baynahum mc ishahum and he changed it to macshatahum[20]

Comments: The reading of the community (jumhoor) of readers is macishatahum in singular. al-'Amash and cAbdullh and Ibn cAbbs and Sufyn read mcishahum in plural as mentioned by Ab Hayyn in Al-Bahr al-Muht, VIII - page 13.[21]

and in al-ladhna kafar (47:15) min mcinn ghayri yasin was changed to min mcinn ghayri sin[22]

Comments: The Seven except Ibn Kathr read ghayri sin with a madd (a long vowel), as for the reading ysinin it is shdh and was mentioned by Ab Hayyn who reported it using the words it was said that .... Refer to Hujjat al-Qir't in page 667 by Ibn Zanjalah and the interpretation of Al-Bahr al-Muht, VIII - page 79.[23]

and in al-Hadd (57:7) he changed fal-ladhna manu minkum wat-taqaw lahum 'ajrun kabr to minkum wa anfaqu. [24]

Comment: I could not find the one who mentioned this reading. [25]

and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) wa m huwa 'alal-ghaybi bidhann to bidann[26]

Comment: Ibn Kathr and Ab 'Amr and al-Kis'i and Rees and Ibn Mahrn from Rawh read with the letter dh and the others read with the letter dd, and so it is in all the Codices (the books). Refer to An-Nashr fil Qir't il'ashr, II - page 398/399. [27]

Dr. Radwn went on to say:

These readings as I have just highlighted are among the correct (Sahh), Mutawtir and well established that we can read in any form it has been drawn into and among them are ones I could not verify which make us doubt about their being attributed to al-Hajjj, especially because he was not isolated from the Ummah. Much more, in his time, no Muslim would let him change or replace anything traced back to the Prophet(P) whether it concerned Qur'n or hadith.

All these arguments rebut the claims of the Orientalists. And the following points confirm the validity of my opinion:

  • al-Hajjj being loyal to cUthmn (or from his court) and since he wouldn't forgive those who let cUthmn down on the day of ad-Dr (or the house), how could he question cUthmn and his codex and make changes in it.

  • The codex of cUthmn was spread everywhere and its copies in the time of cUthmn were countless. How about their number in the Umayyads time? Undoubtedly, their number has increased. Moreover, al-Hajjj was the mere governor of one county of the huge Islamic land. Supposing that he was able to change the copies of his county how could he reach the ones in the other districts while there were thousands of copies! Much more, history did not mention contradictions between the Codices of Iraq and the other Codices. It is well known that the Great Book is saved in the chests of Muslims as much as it is saved in written form. If al-Hajjj managed to change the lines how could he reach what is inside the chests of thousands of Muslims?

  • It is known as well that the Abbassid dynasty was established on the ruins of the Umayyads and that they changed many of the policies of Ban Umayyah in the administration of the lands. They didn't spare any effort in showing the negative aspects of Ban Umayyah and in getting close to the people by spreading justice and defending it. If the Abbassids had found any changes in the Holy Book, it would have been the greatest opportunity for them to show how misleading Ban Umayyah were and, thus, give their own rule some additional legitimacy.[28]

To conclude the issue of al-Hajjj and the changes he made in the Qur'n:

  • It is very obvious that there was no new recension after cUthmn united Muslims on the basis of single text. Muslims have agreed on this. al-Hajjj's role is rather well documented in the literature concerning cUlum al-Qur'n (Sciences of the Qur'n). It has been shown above that the readings which he changed are mutawatir. There is only the difference in the Qir't. Muslims have accepted various Qir't as authentic provided they satisfy some conditions. They are the following:

    • The first condition was that the recitation have an authentic chain of narration in which the chain of narrators was continuous, the narrators were all known to be righteous and they were all known to possess good memories. It was also required that the recitation be conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of the chain of narration below the level of Sahaabah (the condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic chains but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted as explanations (Tafseer) of the Sahaabah but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur'n. As for the narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of narration, they were classified as Baatil (false) and rejected totally.

    • The second condition was that the variations in recitations match known Arabic grammatical constructions. Unusual constructions could be verified by their existence in passages of pre-Islamic prose or poetry.

    • The third condition required the recitation to coincide with the script of one of the copies of the Qur'n distributed during the era of Caliph 'Uthman (RA). Hence differences which result from dot placement (i.e., ta'lamoon and ya'lamoon) are considered acceptable provided the other conditions are met. A recitation of a construction for which no evidence could be found would be classified Shaadhdh. This classification did not mean that all aspects of the recitation was considered Shaadhdh. it only meant that the unverified constructions were considered Shaadhdh.[29]

  • As pointed out earlier, how could al-Hajjj, who was governor of Iraq, a small part of Muslim land, able to change the Qur'nic text completely. The only changes he made was in cUthmn's mushf not in any other text as far as the report mentioned above suggests. The complete change of Qur'n is not documented in the Islamic history at all. And above all how could he change what was commited in the memory of Muslims in the Islamic empire.

   Islamic Awareness Qur'n Text Gilchrist's Refutation Al-Hajjj, Kitb al-Mashif & Gilchrist

And Allah knows best.


References

[1] Arthur Jeffery, Ghevond's Text Of The Correspondence Between 'Umar II and Leo III, 1944, Harvard Theological Review, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., p. 298.

[2] Arthur Jeffery, Op.Cit, p.298.

[3] Ibid. p.298.

[4] Arthur Jeffery, The Qur'n As Scripture, 1952, Russell F Moore Company Inc., New York, p.99.

[5] A F L Beeston, T M Johnstone, R B Serjeant and G R Smith (Editors), Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p.243.

[6] John Gilchrist, Jamc al-Qur'n: The Codification Of The Qur'n Text, 1989, MERCSA.

[7] For Kitb al-Mashif see Arthur Jeffery's, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'n: The Old Codices, 1937, E J Brill, Leiden, pp. 117-118.

[8] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, p. 117.

[9] Dr. cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Aar' al-Mustashriqn Hawl al-Qur'n al-Karm wa Tafsr: Dirsah Wa Naqd, Volume I, 1992, Dr Tbah, Riydh, pp. 430.

[10] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 117.

[11] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.430

[12] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 117.

[13] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.430

[14] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 117.

[15] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.431.

[16] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[17] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.431.

[18] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[19] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.431.

[20] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[21] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.431.

[22] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[23] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.431.

[24] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[25] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.431.

[26] Arthur Jeffery, Kitb al-Mashif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[27] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.431.

[28] cUmar Ibn Ibrhm Radwn, Op.Cit, p.430-431.

[29] Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah Al-Hujuraat, 1990, Tawheed Publications, Riyadh, p.32.

------------------------------------

For Tawhid. Keep cut and paste. The refutation will be there.

Please learn more the argumentation.

http://www.islamdefenders.com/arguments/arguments_quran.htm

http://www.islamdefenders.com/911/Index_911.htm --No Muslims involved in 9-11 attacks.
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 2
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com