Talk Islam

AA 5:58 pm on March 27, 2010
Tags: germany ( 52 ), Quran ( 51 ), scholars ( 12 )   

• 

  Crabby 6:17 pm on March 29, 2010 Permalink

  I thought the Quran’s text are checked against the oral reciter masters who have memorized and passed it down orally since the Prophet’s time?

  • 

    Pretty Pink Unicorns 8:29 pm on March 29, 2010 Permalink

    The Qur’an was standardised by Uthman, who had the various forms collected. He had the rejected forms burnt, although there are certain manuscripts that may be pre-Uthmanic recensions, such as one in San3a, the Yaman. However, even the modern Qur’an forms vary: the standard found in most translations has recognised differences from the standard used in North Africa.

• 

  abunoor 9:43 pm on March 29, 2010 Permalink

  Here is a good introduction to the issue of the “differences” in the Qur’an that Muslim scholars have known about and talked about forever, and to which PPU alludes. These are not really differences, and all of these minor variations of pronunciation are considered to be revealed from Allah.

  These orientalist ‘scholars’ believe they have found, or are trying to find, something else. There is no evidence of what they are claiming they have found that is widely accepted even amongst orientalists, at least as of yet.

  Here is another article from the same site which references many early manuscripts and writing styles.

  • 

    Dawood 10:15 pm on March 29, 2010 Permalink

    First comment here, though have lurked for a while so I hope I got this right.

    It seems that the Corpus Coranicum project is more scholarly than the sensationalists who always get brought in to such discussion by the media. From their own site (German) and even Wiki, it seems to be an attempt to collate the various early manuscript material extant throughout the world – at least at the first stage – and an attempt to show with documentry evidence how the various recensions and so on developed. It also is attempting to show the social milieu of the earliest Muslims – they did not live in a vacuum and had contact with Jewish and Christian (and non-canonical Christian) lore. It has nothing to do with all of the loons who think using Syriac and so on will help us understand the Qur’an better (the whole raisin thing etc.) Walid Saleh has written a convincing rebuttal of the latter approach, published recently (pdf article version of it here.

    I think that a collation of such early sources, and even those showing differences in spelling, and so on – which have been documented and drawn largely from Muslim sources anyway – can only be of benefit to serious Western academic study in this area. It can also help us understand the development of Christianity and the like too, how they developed their own corpus of texts, excluding others and so on.

    • 

      abunoor 12:34 pm on March 30, 2010 Permalink

      Thanks for commenting Dawood and welcome aboard.

      I don’t disagree with anything you said.

      I’m going to start a new thread with my next thought because I’d like to see what others think about it.

• 

  Willow 10:05 am on March 30, 2010 Permalink

  It seems like a lot of people (particularly in the press) are waiting for some kind of Quranic equivalent of the gnostic gospels to be discovered…I have a feeling it’ll be a long wait.

  • 

    Dawood 5:08 pm on March 30, 2010 Permalink

    Agreed Willow, but I think that it must just be popular opinion or something, because in academia thus far it seems clear that the differences – even between the qira’at themselves – are minor.

    Intisar Rabb’s recent article in the Journal of Qur’anic Studies highlights this. It is a non-canonical qira’a that she deals with, but it only has something like 60 minor variants either in orthography or vowel casing documented. Many of them match with one or other of the qira’at anyway. And in a text with over 6,000 verses , each with however many characters, this is infinitesimal in reality. It is a fascinating article and I wish my knowledge of that area was much stronger.

    I just get the feeling that it ultimately comes down to being unable to accept there could be such a thing as revelation which was divinely protected. The Old and New Testaments have been hacked to pieces, and their sacredness for the most part destroyed for the masses, so now it is the turn of the Qur’an. I don’t really think there is anything else to it than this.

    • 

      Pretty Pink Unicorns 7:37 pm on March 30, 2010 Permalink

      If it is divinely protected, there is no danger in examining it, is there?

      I am a Muslim woman and the thought of Qur’anic analysis makes me drool.

      • 

        Dawood 11:38 pm on March 30, 2010 Permalink

        For sure, I am not doubting that for one instant. We already have massive discussion of textual variants in the qira’at literature anyway, with didactic poems being created to learn the variances in the seven accepted recitations and so on, so this is really nothing new!

        What is new, however, is the gathering up and surveying of early materials and manuscripts, which can only show the diligence and love the early Muslims had for the Qur’an, in my opinion. It is more than likely the most read and discussed book in the world, after all…