SOURCE OF CRITIQUEhttp://www.facebook.com/notes/jason-wilson/response-to-joseph-islam-on-the-hafs-transmission-being-the-one-and-only-oral-tr/431545633585896Whether the critique remains posted at the original location in the future remains at the discretion of the poster (Jason Wilson). Therefore, a copy of the contents of the critique is available in digital form. Please feel free to contact me for a copy.
Alternatively, those that do not have a Facebook account, a copy of the contents of the critique can be accessed from the link below:
http://quransmessage.com/(9)%20Facebook/Academic%20Critiques/2013%2001%20-%20Jason%20Wilson.htmReferences are made in the critique to my original post on another thread with regards a video shared. The transcript of the thread can be viewed from the link below:
http://quransmessage.com/(9)%20Facebook/Academic%20Critiques/2013%2001%2000%20-%20FB%20Thread%20with%20Jason%20Wilson.jpgMY RESPONSE:Dear Jason,
Peace.
Please see my responses to your comments and questions in
brown text:
Your comment:
"It is an interesting question coming from a person who admittedly also allows for the five daily prayer based upon masse mutwattir practice"My articles make it clear that the en masse (mutawatir) propagation of the prayer that we have with us today
‘as best practice’ does
not contravene any verse of the Quran and fulfils the overarching requirement of the Quran with the guidance it offers with establishing prayer.
[1] Therefore, I respectfully find no need to 'reinvent the wheel'. I also posit that the Quran allows for
assimilation when met with a prayer tradition which doesn't conflict with its overarching guidance.
[2] Please see my articles that deal with prayer.
However the above does
not categorically imply (nor have I ever expressed) that I accept today's prayer tradition as
'religiously' prescribed.
There is a difference. Outside a congregation (which I fully understand conforms for unity and congregational logistics), I may feel that I can change the prayer technique / form
without contradicting any verse of the Quran or its overarching command to
'establish prayer'. It remains a choice I can exercise or I can continue to follow today's tradition as 'best practice'. I have argued for the establishment of five periods of prayer from the Quran and this too can be read from the prayers section of my site. Those that assert today's form and utterance of prayer is
'religiously prescribed' by God have to provide clear evidence for this position from the Quran.
Your questions:
So let us ask our brother what his his proof that there has been 'one' and 'only' one transmission from the Blessed Messenger (saw) outside of a presupposition that this is the case?
1 - How are you certain this is the case when by your own admission we do not have the 'original codex'My faith in the Quran's veracity is not formed from the knowledge that the original written Quran(s) / codices exist. With respect, I have made this repeatedly clear. It is based on the
arguments it presents and the ultimate realisation that it is of Divine origin. Once I accept the Quran's testimony, I accept each word as God's word.
Therefore,
from the Quran I have argued that only
one transmission of the Quran was inspired to the Prophet who recited it in
one form. [3]2 - What do you check your claim against?I check my claims foremost against the Quran's own testimony which in my opinion, argues for one transmission.
3 - What are these 'ancient Hafs written copies' that you speak of?There are ancient written codices that exist which corroborate today's majority reading of the Quran.
4 - When were they dated?Academics / scholars may disagree on actual dates of various MSSs but you can access these discussions for yourself. With respect I do not intend to do the research for you. I have repeatedly asserted that the Quran was foremost revealed as an
oral propagation and transmitted
en masse (mutawatir). The tradition of memorising the Quran and subsequent transmission is still prevalent today. Whether we have the original / early manuscripts or not
does not prove the Quran's Divine origins. Indeed, I have argued
from the Quran that a tradition of writing the Quran was in situ at the time of the Prophet.
[3] Whether those very manuscripts exist today or not does not negate the fact that they once existed.
5 - Do you mean to say that there are variances that 'Alter the message' outside of those copies?To my knowledge, there are no intra-variances in the transmissions themselves (Hafs-Hafs; Warsh-Warsh). The contained scope of the variances that do exist between
Hafs (recited by
95% of the Muslim population today) and
Warsh (
3% of the Muslim population - 2% others) which I respectfully find are oft over emphasized by certain critics, I have cited excerpts from scholarly sources for readers to assess.
Just to respectfully re-iterate, this question from my perspective is mute as I only argue for
one transmission which left the Prophet's mouth and then transmitted en masse. The Hafs transmission is accepted by
95% of the population today and I feel this satisfies my expectations.
Once again, my faith in the Quran is not based on the existence of a particular transmission. It is based on the
strength of the arguments of a majority reading and the realisation that God has spoken.
6 - If you say yes, than how so and why?Again the remit of those differences have been shared by citing an appropriate study.
Your comment:
"Now what does not seem very academic to me is that Joseph Islam makes a huge to do about the term 'ahruf', yet glosses over the word rather quickly in his introduction above."Dear brother, are you asking me sincere questions or attempting to ridicule me? I have always dealt with you in a respectful manner. I even informed you that if readers have cause for critique that they are happy to share them on the QM Forum which is a dedicated platform for academic discussions. I would then endeavour to respond in due course. Yet I find your language and method very disappointing.
Your comment:
"I would venture to say that brother Joseph himself is not quite sure what the term 'ahruf' means."Whilst I cited that there were / are disagreements amongst some scholars as to the exact meaning of the term, I clearly stated
my understanding of the root of this word from a Quranic perspective and how it is used in different contexts. I also made use of the generic English term
'variants' to capture my best interpretation. I share my quote from the article.
"For the purpose of this article, the generic English term 'variants' will be used to indicate a difference of some nature that the phrase 'seven ahruf' implies. It is interesting to note that the Quranic use of the word 'harf' appears in different forms. In its noun form, it means a margin or an edge (22:11) and its verb form can mean to alter, pervert, or to tamper with. (2:75, 4:46, 5:13, 5:41)." You assert that:
“Joseph Islam simply gave us the only case in which the term 'ahruf' appears in noun form in the Holy Qur'an.”This is wholly incorrect and sadly, misleading. I also gave its
verb form as can be attested above.
Your comment:
"So Joseph tells us that 'ahruf' means 'variants' that indicate a difference 'of some nature'. Yet, as already cited above that he already admits that there are 'inter variances' , but he assures us 'they do not alter the message'."I have never claimed that there are 'inter variances'. With respect, once again this is a complete invention on your part. I have repeatedly contended with the proposition that there are any 'variances' in the Quran and have repeatedly argued that the position from the secondary sources is untenable. I simply cite what the implications of the secondary sources are in what they allege with regards 'variants' and what they imply by usage of such a term. That does not mean I agree with the assertions put forth by the secondary sources.
There is not one verse in the Quran that confirms:
- The Quran was revealed in different recitation modes
- The Quran was revealed in different transmissions
- The Prophet sanctioned different recitation modes of the Quran
- The Prophet sanctioned different transmissions of the Quran
Therefore, I find the use of the prefixed statement
"So Joseph tells us" is misleading, underhanded and academically unwarranted.
Your comment:
"Yet, he finds the term 'hafs' tenuous as well.
As he says of 'hafs' in his article above “of its alleged reciter, Abu Bakr 'Asim”
So do we label it 'hafs' for the sake of convenience? What makes it a 'hafs' copy? I have made it clear along with the bold citation that these claims are 'alleged'. It is of little relevance to me what one calls the recitation that is accepted by the
95% majority of Muslims today. The fact remains we have early manuscripts that corroborate today's majority reading. I also clearly stated by way of a 'shared sentiment' that:
"Little significance, however, should be attached to the Qur'an being known according to transmitters belonging to a century and a half after the Prophet. As ibn Khaldun said, they are merely single names representing whole schools, and in no way are to be considered initiators"Your comment:
I am beginning to wonder if Joseph is understanding what Adrian Brockett is saying.
There are variations in the recitation and orthography.
There are no effects on the meaning of a text with in a GIVEN transmission, but there are between DIFFERENT transmissions! Dear Jason Wilson, is this a sincere enquiry or an attempt to ridicule a fellow Muslim brother’s humble efforts? I shared Dr. Andrew Brockett's study and an excerpt from him which makes it clear that there are NO variances within a transmission. I ask sincerely, why the attempt to ridicule me in third person?
Your comment:
To support this Joseph Islam makes huge presumptions based upon two passages from the Holy Qur'an.
075:17-18 "Indeed, Upon Us is its collection (Arabic: jam'ahu) and its recitation (Arabic: qur'anahu). And when We have recited it (qaranahu) then follow its recitation (Arabic: qur'anahu)"
It is truly a theological leap to take the above passage as supporting only one particular recitation of the Qur'an. For example, we can use this passage to support any recitation of the Qur'an.
In order for Jospeh Islam to make this case he would have to appeal to those tedious secondary sources-rather they be Islamic or Orientalist assertions.I do not feel there is a theological leap nor as you suggest, do I find the need to appeal to secondary sources.
The word
'jam'aHU' and
'qur'anaHU' with the use of possessive pronouns in the singular clearly indicates to me that there is only one transmission of the Quran.
Your comment:
Joseph Islam also states,
“To claim that there are absolutely no differences between the two transmissions (Hafs and Warsh) is academically incorrect and amounts to intellectual dishonesty. Such claims are either based on ignorance or sadly, deliberate obfuscation.”
Joseph Islam also states,
“The Hafs transmission remains the widely accepted transmission in the Muslim world today which is attested not only by consensus (and mutawwatir propagation) but also early Quranic codices.”
This could be a bit misleading and I will kindly ask brother Joseph to clarify what he means by this above.
Joseph Islam, are you asserting by this statement that traditional Muslim scholarship (rather you agree with it or not) dismisses the Warsh recitation, as well as the other transmissions?The first quote clearly accepts that some variances exist between the TWO transmissions
Hafs (recited by
95% of the Muslim population) and
Warsh (recited by
3% of the Muslim population). The second quote clearly corroborates the first statement that if 95% of the population adhere to it, then it must be the most widely accepted transmission.
Your question:
"The follow up question to this is have you ever thought about the role the Ottoman Empire may have played in the wide use of the Hafs transmission of the Qur'an?"With respect, I would disincline to argue about hypothetical situations or secondary sources that underpin them in your critique.
Your comment:
"What is the earliest dated manuscript or codex of the Qur'an that supports your assertion that there was only 'only' 'one' recitation of the Qur'an."Unless an individual can produce every single written codex of the Quran ever written during the Prophet's ministry and immediately afterwards to assess the 'majority reading' based on
written codices alone, I respectfully posit that no soul on Earth can assert
'as fact' what the majority reading entailed based on
transcriptions alone. The possession of isolated codices of the Quran from antiquity which exhibit different transmissions is not unequivocal proof.
There was only
one reading that was inspired in the Prophet and transmitted en masse (mutawatir) as the majority reading. I have made use of the
Quran to provide clear evidence. You can either accept that, or with respect, reject it.
Your comment:
Because people may also misunderstand what you are saying here would you say, would you kindly clarify
a) Does Andrew Brockett agrees with your assertion that the Qur'an was transmitted in only one recitation?
b) Does Andrew Brockett agree with your assertion that there is no Ahruf concerning the Qur'an?This is a question, with respect you will have to ask Dr. Brockett at St John University in York, England. I have provided clear evidence from the Quran that only one recitation was propagated via the Prophet with no multiple transmissions or variants. Dr. Brockett can either agree with my position that I assert
from the Quran or he may disagree. This is not a question for me to answer.
Your comment:
"What particular passages in the Qur'an do you feel reached out to you? What particular passages of the Qur'an proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is indeed a divine revelation?
The reason I ask this is as you know many people have read the Qur'an, and unfortunately did not come to that conclusion. So I was curious to glean from you what in particular about the Qur'an leaves such an over all awesome impression upon you."With respect, this is the kind of question I would expect to be asked by someone who may not be sure of the Quran's Divine origin's themselves. May I humbly ask whether that is the real question that is behind your whole critique even though I understand you claim to be a Muslim that accepts the Quran as God’s word?
I humbly feel those Muslims that have come to accept the Quran as the whole truth, nothing but the truth and of its Divine origins without a shadow of doubt based on its
argumentation, do not ask other Muslims such questions. It is usually the approach of those critical to Islam. Also, such a response would only be subjective. Different passages and argumentations affect different people in different ways. The Quran was revealed for mankind with multifaceted argumentations to appeal to a wide audience.
After studying the Quran, some come to the conclusion that it is God's word, some don't.
I do and
I bear witness that the Quran that is recited by the majority of Muslims today is God’s word and I wholly submit to it.
Your comment:
"As mentioned before your writings are usually very careful and well researched. I would say there seems to be a bit of 'cherry picking' when it comes to Brockett and his research."Dear brother, you can make any allegations you like or subsequently underhandedly ridicule me as you please. I have only ever extended my offerings of peace to you.
FINAL THOUGHTS Whereas, I do not accept anything outside the Quran as
'religiously binding', I respectfully find your position to be the most vulnerable, untenable and intellectually dissatisfying. With respect, you seem to accept some secondary practices and beliefs from secondary sources
religiously binding and some not.
Therefore, the two most pertinent questions for me regarding your method would be:
- If you do not dismiss the whole Islamic secondary sources as 'religiously binding', how do you reconcile your faith in a two source system? Do you accept that you pick and choose based on your subjective criteria?
- Where in the Quran do you find unequivocal authority for any aspect of the secondary source corpus as religiously binding?
Finally with respect to the essence of your critique, please can you provide me clear evidence
FROM THE QURAN that:
- The Quran was revealed in different recitation modes
- The Quran was revealed in different transmissions
- The Prophet sanctioned different recitation modes of the Quran
- The Prophet sanctioned different transmissions of the Quran
I feel that I have been duly accommodating and have responded to your questions and comments. Please can you provide me clear responses for the above questions.
You are most welcome to respond to me on the QM Forum.
With respect, I do not find the Facebook social platform with its monotone text / limited highlighting capability conducive for meaningful academic debates. I have also often found that the ability to ‘instantly respond’ allows at times aggrieved minds to vent their anger 'in the moment' with ill thought out arguments. (I mean that generally of course). It also can breed animosity which I am sure you will have observed from your own experience on other groups and discussions on Facebook.
Regards,
Joseph.
REFERENCES:[1] PRAYERShttp://quransmessage.com/articles/prayer%20FM3.htm[2] THE IMPORTANCE OF CONGREGATIONAL PRAYERhttp://quransmessage.com/articles/congregational%20prayer%20FM3.htm[3] THE COMPILATION OF THE QURANhttp://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20compilation%20of%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm[/list]
Show Posts
