Manuscripts

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Peaceful,

There are early manuscripts (obviously, the Bible has more discrepancies) that are very different in details, when compared to the standard Egyptian-Arabic Quran of today. How can an objective person then decide what is God's 'unchanged' word, even if it is an oral tradition, which is less credible than tangible written accounts???

There is only one Quranic recitation which was inspired in the Prophet. May I respectfully share my following article with you which addresses some of the concerns in your above quote.

THE SEVEN AHRUF, RECITATIONS (QIRAAT), HAFS AND WARSH
http://quransmessage.com/articles/seven%20readings%20FM3.htm

I hope that helps, God willing.

May peace be with you.

Regards,
Joseph.

[Peaceful]

So do you say that those Muslims who recite using Warsh recitation are incorrect beyond a doubt(because they are a minority)? The letters are different but appear to be based on a dot-less skeleton identical to Hafs. What do you say of Shia' distortions, which definitely exist?

2:125 in Hafs is وَاتَّخِذوْا “WatakhIzu” (You shall take) / In Warsh it is وَاتَّخَذوْا “WatakhAzu” (They have taken/made). These are totally different in meaning.

Verse counts for Hafs are 6236, while Warsh records 6214.

You state: "In other words, a Hafs copy is consistent with all the Hafs copies." I would have to respectfully disagree with this claim. May you please address these inconsistencies brother:

A. Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, and Uwe Bergmann have written about a palimpsest found at Sana’a. It dates from the the first half of the seventh century AD; it does not belong to the Uthmanic textual tradition;19 and it contains textual variants from the Uthmanic tradition:

1. In 2:196, the word Ru'usakum (your heads) is not in the inferior text. It appears to be a clarification addition.
2. In 63:7, the inferior text has min Hawlihi after Yanfaddu. This is a clear deletion of the phrase 'from around him' at the end of the sentence.

B. Tashkent: More importantly, the general study of this text reveals that in addition to it missing many Chapters, it also appears to be a deviant text missing complete words in some places and even dropping letters in mid-sentence.

1. In 19:72, it has Fa instead of Nun.
2. In 7:69, BaSta has Seen instead of Sad. Neither in Hafs or Warsh.

C. Gold Quran: Online by John Hopkins has elements of both variants.
The Hafs version only matched with 32% of the verses compared, while the Warsh version produced a 53% match with the Gold Quran.

1. 9:107, has Wa-lazeena instead of Al-Lazeena contrary to Warsh.
2. 5:53, has YaQul instead of Wa-YaQul, same as Warsh.

D. Dan Gibson claimed that: "I then examined hundreds of old Qur'anic manuscripts to search for these verses, and they are missing in all of the Qur'ans written during the first 100 years of Islam. This clearly indicates to me that the Qur'an was re-compiled by the Abbasids." He is reffering to the verses of the Qibla change". Archaeology seems to support his claims.

E. Sana'a: Based on research on some of Puin's work.

1. Moreover, in the the verb ‘yu’addibhum’, ‘he (Allah) will punish them’, found on ‘Fol. 16r, Z.13’, is not explained with ‘adaban aliman’, ‘with a painful punishment’, as in the Standard Text (StT). Fits the verse' context as well.

2. Instead of the word ‘Jahannnamu,’ , found in the Standard Text, the old manuscript version contains the synonym ‘l-naru’, ‘the fire’. It is almost identical with a parallel text found in today’s Surah 24:57. Coincidence?

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Peaceful,

Peace be with you.

Thank you for raising your contentions in the respectful manner that you have.

You state: "In other words, a Hafs copy is consistent with all the Hafs copies." I would have to respectfully disagree with this claim. 

With respect, please see an excerpt from a comprehensive PhD study from Dr. Andrew Brockett cited below which I find supports the view I have shared and with which you have expressed academic disagreement.

• "Most of the variations simply concern orthography or recitation, and it must be said at the outset that none has any effect on the meaning of the text. Within a given transmission, such as Hafs', that never varies. It must also be said that there is no clear dividing line between reading and chanting, so some variations are purely recitative." [1]
• "The variations simply concern orthography or recitation, and it must be said at the outset that none has any effect on the meaning of the text. Within a given transmission, such as Wars', that never varies. Variations in script have been mainly discussed above in chapters 4 and 5. That many of these variations have been covered by those between Hafs copies obviates the need for extensive description here. In general, it was found that, the printed Wars copies and many North-West African manuscripts of the Qur'an, notably here Edinburgh New College ms.1*, belong to a scrupulously adhered-to Tradition." [2]

If you have any scholarly comprehensive study that academically and cogently challenges this claim within transmissions (Hafs-Hafs; Warsh-Warsh) and the limitation of the variances outlined in the study, please feel free to share. With respect, I would not find your citations A-E providing such a rebuttal or the level of comprehensive scrutiny required to adequately contend with the 'intra-comparison' assertions posited above.

I have noted your citation of Dan Gibson as below:

D. Dan Gibson claimed that: "I then examined hundreds of old Qur'anic manuscripts to search for these verses, and they are missing in all of the Qur'ans written during the first 100 years of Islam. This clearly indicates to me that the Qur'an was re-compiled by the Abbasids." He is reffering to the verses of the Qibla change". Archaeology seems to support his claims.
 

Without any comprehensive scholarly support detailing what manuscripts were studied, what exact verses are alluded to, what the author classifies as '1st century' MSSs and a detailed scrutiny, I find this a wild, unjustified claim with an inferred conclusion which is non sequitur. One would need to see clear evidence of complete copies of the Quran with the verses alluded to clearly removed as if they were never part of the recitation. Please can you also share with me archaeological evidence which clearly challenges the Qibla verses of the Quran as it is recited today.

E. Sana'a: Based on research on some of Puin's work.

In my humble academic opinion, I have yet to see a comprehensive study of the Sana’a MSSs by the German scholar, Gerd Rüdiger Puin which for me provides cogent evidence which casts doubts on the stability and dissemination of the Quranic text.

In my humble view, it is important to remember that the Quran was primarily an en masse 'oral recitation' which was backed up by a written tradition which is also clear from the Quran (80.13-16) [3].

Any party of souls can edit a scripture, re-write a scripture, or remove verses from scripture and call it the authentic 'Quran'.  The propagation of the Quran was en masse and only a majority consensus reading can ever be accepted as authentic. In my opinion, this is the only condition that would satisfy verse 15:9 and the protection conferred. There was only ever one recitation of the Quran that left the Prophet's mouth [3] which was transmitted en masse.

With regards alleged Shi'a distortions, there are many Shi'a's themselves which would challenge such claims. I would with respect, need specifics with regards what you allege with a view to provide any meaningful comment.

I can only re-iterate my conclusions based on my article where I have cited evidence to support my view and elucidating another in this post given your respectful contention.

Despite the insignificant differences between the Hafs and Warsh transmissions that we know of today, only the universal recitation of the Quran which is recited today by approximately 95% (Hafs) of the Muslim world can be acceptable from a Quranic perspective.

In the end from a Quran's perspective, it is important I feel to provide context to whatever one chooses to read in what has reached them in light of the following verses: [4]

039:018
"Those who listen to the Word (the Quran) and follow the best meaning in it / best of it (Arabic: fayattabi'una ahsanahu) those are the ones whom God has guided and those are the one's endowed with understanding (Arabic: Albabi)
 
039.055
"And follow the best of what is revealed to you from your Lord, before the penalty comes to you suddenly while you do not perceive!”

I hope that helps, God willing.
Joseph.


REFERENCES

[1] BROCKETT. Adrian Alan, Studies in Two Transmissions of the Qur'an, University of St. Andrews, Department of Arabic Studies. PhD Thesis 1984, Variations between Hafs Copies, page 45
Any emphasis in bold black, are my own insertions. They have no bearing on the original text other than they emphasise relevance to the topic at hand. These are merely illustrations and have solely been utilised for educational and explanatory purposes. 
[2] Ibid,  Variations between Wars Copies, page 77
Any emphasis in bold black, are my own insertions. They have no bearing on the original text other than they emphasise relevance to the topic at hand. These are merely illustrations and have solely been utilised for educational and explanatory purposes.
[3] THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN
http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20compilation%20of%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm
[4] DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH SINCERITY
http://quransmessage.com/articles/best%20you%20can%20FM3.htm

[Peaceful]

Thank you for replying. I will address each of your Quotes separately:

A. The main study I used was by a Muslim, Layth Al-Shaiban. She made her own translation. The entire exposition is at
http://www.free-minds.org/sites/default/files/WhichQuran.pdf

She uses the earliest Quranic manuscripts, of which I gave you some examples. She also pointed out the verse number difference to the Saudi printers.

B. I'll be honest and point out that I have took his word on the 'Qibla' manuscript discrepancies. There is ample evidence that the Qibla was changed during the Ummayad and Abbasid Wars. This was obviously much after the Prophet's death, utilizing the use of non-muslim sources as well. Dan Gibson gave most of his archaeological evidence at: http://searchformecca.com/evidence.html
Muslims at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html
attempted to refute this claim. But the 2 Iraqi and 1 Egyptian Mosques whose Qiblas they calculated, triangulate in North-West Arabia, not near Mecca nor Jerusalem. Dan Gibson refutes these and other claims as well, such as Masjid Al-Qiblatain.
There is also a document from Jacob of Edessa that states that:
1. In Egypt, Jews and Muslims prayed in the SAME compass direction(East).
2. In Iraq, they BOTH pray to the West. Notice that Iraqis today must pray South-SW to face Mecca.

C. Sana'a Manuscipts:
The German scholar Elisabeth Puin (of Saarland University), whose husband was the local director of the restoration project until 1985, has transcribed the lower text of six folios (and one side of another folio) in four successive publications.[7][8][9][10] Behnam Sadeghi (Professor of Islamic Studies at Stanford University) published, in 2010, an extensive study of the 4 folios auctioned abroad and analyzed their variants using textual critical methods. In March 2012, Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi (of Harvard University) published a long essay containing a complete edition of the lower text of the folios in the House of Manuscripts and those auctioned abroad, along with an analysis.[1]

I encourage you to read and comment on these studies.