Discussions on Manuscripts and My Responses to a Critique by Jason Wilson

[Joseph Islam]

SOURCE OF CRITIQUE

http://www.facebook.com/notes/jason-wilson/response-to-joseph-islam-on-the-hafs-transmission-being-the-one-and-only-oral-tr/431545633585896

Whether 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.htm

References 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.jpg



MY 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] PRAYERS
http://quransmessage.com/articles/prayer%20FM3.htm
[2] THE IMPORTANCE OF CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER
http://quransmessage.com/articles/congregational%20prayer%20FM3.htm
[3] THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN
http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20compilation%20of%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm[/list]

[Sardar Miyan]

Assalam Bro JAI Mashallah you have given an apt reply to whomsoever I dont know. But the cat will be out of sack when he has to answer your questions.Thanks

[Saba]

Salaam br. Joseph ....I find this gentleman Jason Wilson no different from the traditionalists and am appauled at the manner he has twisted your comments and perspectives. As you rightly point out, this semi-Quran position is very problematic and most dangeorous as it has no firm footing (either accept the traditions as a main part of religion or not). I sincerely hope that he answers your questions but I suspect he will use the same old tired arguments that the traditionalists use. Lets wait and see. Saba 

[Truth Seeker]

Salaam Joseph,

I feel that the mannerism in which Jason spoke to you was rude really. Was there really a need to speak to you in third person and why the need to dissect your statements and distort them?

He really needs to evaluate why he thinks the Quran is from God rather than asking you to prove why!

[HOPE]

Peace Joseph,

I join friends Sardar, Saba and Truth Seeker in support of your position against the uncalled critique of Mr. Wilson. Borderline hypocrisy!

[Duster]

Shalom / Peace Joseph

I would be the first to disagree with you if I felt it was called for and although I respect your v. convincing academic works and great efforts, there are times (v.v.few though) when I have felt maybe a different opinion. However, I am amazed at this critique > quite honestly which I agree totally with Hope - is borderline hypocrisy! Personally I wouldn't waste any more time with this individual as his attitude says it all. His so called academic rebuttal is also a joke quite frankly. That attitude isn't going to take him very far and he will end up loosing a lot of well-wishers, I can tell you that. I also side by Truth seeker - I think he really needs to think about why he believes the Qur'an is from Allah. I sense some serious insecurities on his part. I really do!

[Joseph Islam]

In addition to my above post:

Jason's statement:

You have a belief in a singular recitation of the Qur'an transmitted as an oral tradition not backed up with any manuscript evidence prior to 300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
You would be hard pressed to find a manuscript of the Qur'an dated earlier than this time period that matches with what you have in your hand.

This is patently false. We have extant manuscripts of the Quran dated earlier than this period. Please see the following link which I only cite as it is easily accessible for readers.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/


Jason's comment:

However, I will find the Qur'an only position untenable because it seems to ignore history and a vast body of evidence that Is contrary to many of its assertions.

This is a position of the Quran itself.

006.155
"And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it (Arabic: fa-ittabi'uhu) and fear (God) / be righteous so that you may receive mercy"

Please see the following articles where I have cited numerous verses as evidence for the Quran being the sole 'religious authority'.

THE QURAN STANDS ALONE AS SOLE RELIGIOUS GUIDANCE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/quran%20sole%20guidance%20FM3.htm

GOD HAS WARNED BELIEVERS TO ONLY FOLLOW THE QURAN
http://quransmessage.com/articles/god%20has%20warned%20believers%20to%20only%20follow%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm

Please either provide alternative interpretations for the verses cited in the article or clear unequivocal proof from the Quran which supports your two-source religious authority.


With respect and regards,
Joseph.

[Sardar Miyan]

Bro Joseph Salam The Source of Critique Site  is not openning when i clicked Thanks

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Sardar,

Peace.

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.htm

Also, references 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.jpg

I hope that helps, God willing.
Joseph.

[Duster]

Shalom / Peace Joseph

Mr. Jason's statement that

"You would be hard pressed to find a manuscript of the Qur'an dated earlier than this time period that matches with what you have in your hand."

is unbelievable ...also makes me think he may not be familiar with your studies in this area. I know you provided evidence for earlier manuscripts which prove some of todays' recitation - like in the following article = http://quransmessage.com/articles/19%20FM3.htm  .... pity - I think no point continuing the debate

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Duster,

Peace to you.

I have repeatedly endeavoured to curtail this discussion with the brother. To be candid, it has been a drain on time resources that I really didn’t have. Even today I received an even longer response with plenty of questions for me to respond to, but I resisted, rather focusing my last response in providing context on certain issues. I also see no point in such debates where one continuously and relentlessly argues from secondary sources which were not compiled until at times, centuries after the death of the Prophet. 

Please see Jason's response

http://quransmessage.com/(9)%20Facebook/Academic%20Critiques/2013%2001%20-%20Jason%20Wilson-2.htm

and my response to his.

http://quransmessage.com/(9)%20Facebook/Academic%20Critiques/2013%2001%20-%20Joseph%20Islam-2.htm

I agree with you that it appears that brother Jason is not familiar with my humble efforts with ancient manuscripts, hence why I sense that in his second response above, he felt that I had simply sourced a link after 24 hours. I didn't feel the need to prove anything even though I felt that the tone continued to be sarcastic such as with the comment: "Than voila! You give us the link above"

So I find it duly unfair for you in the span of 24 hours to say,
 
" With respect I do not intend to do the research for you."
 
Than voila!  You give us the link above. I hope that you will be able to tell us which of the manuscripts dated prior to the 3rd century in that treasure trove is the one that 'matches with what you have in your hand'.

It is disappointing as I have made my position clear when he first contacted me supporting my humble efforts by posting on my Facebook wall.

http://quransmessage.com/(9)%20Facebook/Shared/others/jasonwilsonfirst.jpg

Original: http://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/171312213005914

I hope that the brother takes heed from my repeated humble requests to halt this discussion in my final response to him and rather focus on his own position of ‘Prima quran’ and find authority in the Quran for a two source system.

Regards,
Joseph.

[Peaceful]

Salam, nice response to the critique.  Anyway, this should help Jason Wilson out:

http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/quran/maili.html

As a side note, what do you make of the lack of vowels(fatha, damma, kasra) in the first century manuscripts. Just for knowledge's-sake.

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Peaceful,

Thank you for your post.

With regards your question, please kindly allow me to respond to it by way of an example.

If one presents an Urdu newspaper to an Arab, although the Arab will recognise most of the alphabets in the script and know their general sounds, they will require vocalisation to pronounce the words correctly. However, even a child that reads Urdu will require no vocalisation to know how the words of an Urdu newspaper are pronounced and read.

Conversely, if an Arabic newspaper without vocalisation is presented to one adept in Urdu, the Urdu speaker will recognise most of the alphabets and know their general sounds, but will require vocalisation to pronounce the words correctly. However, even a child that reads Arabic will require no vocalisation to know how the words of the Arabic newspaper are pronounced.

The Quran was revealed in the cradle of a spoken language as an oral narrative and those proficient with the Arabic language knew very well how those words once written would sound without diacritical marks / vocalisation. It is no different today, much Arabic literature requires no vocalisation. Arabs simply know how the words are pronounced in that context.

When the ancient manuscripts slowly filtered to non-native lands, understandably they required the assistance of vocalisation as an aid to correct pronunciation. Even today, one often notes the lack of vocalised script of the Quran that the Arab's read and the vocalised ones non-Arabs read. 

I feel much is made of the lack of diacritical marks / vocalisation of ancient scriptures which serves no other purpose but to create a conduit to cast unwarranted doubts on the preservation of the scripture.

I hope that helps, God willing,
Joseph.

[Peaceful]

You are right  Thanks, I always wondered about this.

[Reader Comments]

A PEACEFUL ENDING


By: JASON WILSON

Peace be unto you. I want to apologize to you for anything that I said that was offensive or just simply wrong for me to say. When I started my web site after a crisis in my life I was going through google and your site came up. It was one of the best, if not the best I have read on the Qur'an only position. I had learned allot from you and I know many continue to do. I think your very intelligent, articulate, and can write better than anything that I could have hoped to accomplish. I hope that God continues to bless you and brings fruit to all that you do. As I met you in peace so too do I leave you in Peace.

http://quransmessage.com/(9)%20Facebook/Shared/others/jasonwilson1.jpg



Response by: JOSEPH ISLAM

Dear brother Jason,

Walaikum-salaam.

Thank you for your kind words.

We are both mere cogs in the greater machinery of information flow from whence we seek to quench our thirst of seeking truth for the sake of God. I believe you and I have sincere intent and therefore in that at least, we are kindred spirits.

Anything either of us transmits of truth is certainly by God's mercy and any errors are solely from ourselves.

Please do not feel the need to apologise dear brother. You are a respected soul and I look forward to seeing you in a spiritual kingdom that is promised to believers if it is God's will and He has mercy on our souls. May God forgive us, iA.

I am in the main, unavailable to my wider readership at present, so if you get an automated email, please do ignore it. I thought I'd make a special exception to respond to you.

With utmost respect, always.

Your brother in faith,

Joseph.

http://quransmessage.com/(9)%20Facebook/Shared/others/jasonwilson2.jpg