Perseverance of the Quran

[Dimi95]

One might say, we have a Quran from some time between 568 and 645 AD.It makes it very close to the time when Mohammad lived.It is in Cadbury Research Library at the University of Birmingham, UK.

But as impressive as that looks when you dig a little bit things get to show up.
One of the many reasons i don't trust it.

Uthman produced a standardised version of the Qur'an in 652. He sent a copy to each province, and ordered that all other Quranic materials "whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies," must be burned.

It is said that Ibn Mas’ud was displeased by the finished product; in particular:
That he accused Uthman's scribes of adding three extra suras (1, 113 and 114) that had never been part of the original, and of making many other small changes to the text.
That he preached a sermon in Kufa in which he called Uthman's standardised Quran a "deceit". "And whoever deceives like this will bring his deceit on the Day of Resurrection … I like it better to read according to the recitation of him whom I love than that of Zayd ibn Thabit … If I knew anyone to be more conversant with Allah's Book than I am, I would surely go to him if camels could carry me there."
-Muhammad ibn Saad. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. Translated by Haq, S. M. (1972). Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir Volume II Parts I & II. Delhi: Kitab Bhavan.



When Uthman's agents came to Kufa to burn all the variants, Abd Allah hid his copy from them.
-Tirmidhi 44:3104

He justified his own version of the recitation by reminding people: "I recited before Allah's Messenger more than seventy suras of the Qur'an. His Companions know that I have a better understanding of Allah's Book than they do; and if I were to know that someone had a better understanding than I have, I would have gone to him." It was said that nobody could find fault with Abd Allah's version.

-Sahih Muslim 31:6022.

When Uthman was called to account for his mismanagement as Caliph, one of the grievances against him was that he had destroyed variant readings of the Qur'an.[5]: 156  Much later, Abd Allah ibn Masud's variant readings were discussed on equal terms with the Uthmanic text by al-Farra (d. 207/822).
-Gilliot, C. (2006). "Creation of a fixed text.' In Dammen McAuliffe, J. : The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an, p. 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

However, the vast majority of Muslim scholars never accepted these reports due to their weakness, as well as many strong reports indicating the exact opposite to be true.

The Qur'an says in 15:87 "We have given thee seven of the oft-repeated (verses) and the great Qur'an." The seven often-repeated verses refer to al-Fatihah, the first sura of the Qur'an, which Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud is alleged to have denied. However, quoting Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn adh-Dhurays, Ibn al-Munzar and Ibn Mardwiyah, as-Suyuti narrated the following:

It is narrated from Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, regarding the word of Allah, "We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses;" he said, "[It is] Fatihatu al-Kitab."
- as-Suyuti. Dur al-Manthur. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr). pp. Vol.5, 94.

In another narration, Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud was asked why he did not write al-Fatihah in his mushaf. He replied, "If I were to write it, I would write it before every sura." Abu Bakr al-Anbari explains this saying every raka’a (in prayers) starts with al-Fatiha and then another sura is recited. It is as if Ibn Masud said, "I have dropped it for the sake of brevity and I have trusted its preservation by Muslims (collectively)."
-al-Qurtubi. al-Jami' li-Ahkam al-Qur'an (also called Tafsir al-Qurtubi). Cairo: Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyah, 1964. pp. Vol.1 pg 115.

There are also narrations from Abd Allah where he explicitly refers to suras 113 and 114 as surahs, for example: "Excessively recite two surahs. Allah will make you reach higher ranks in the Hereafter because of them. They are al-Mu'awwidhatayn (i.e. al-Falaq and an-Nas/nos. 113 & 114)…"
-ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, Ali. Kanz al-Ummal: Hadith 2743. Beirut: ar-Resalah Publications, 1981.

Four qira'at of the Qur'an (Qira'at of Hamzah, 'Aasim, Khalaf, Al-Kisa'i) have chains of transmission (isnad) going through Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, and they all include the above three suras. These are mutawatir chains and thus Islamic scholars give precedence to them, disregarding much weaker chains that go against it as inauthentic.
-al-Jazri, Shams ad-Din. an-Nashr fi Qira'at al-'Ashr. (Cairo: Maktaba at-Tijariah al-Kubra, n.d.). pp. Vol1, 1 55, 165, 172, 185.

For these reasons, Islamic scholars rejected the notion of Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud rejecting suras. Al-Nawawi says: "The Muslims have all agreed that al-Mu'awwidhatayn and al-Fatihah are part of the Qur'an and whoever denies this becomes a disbeliever and whatever is quoted from Ibn Masud in this regard is not true."
-al-Suyuti. al-Ittiqan. pp. Vol.1, 271.

Ibn Hazm also rejected the notion of Ibn Masud denying these suras, along with the vast majority of Islamic scholars.
-Ibn Hazm. al-Muhalla. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.). pp. Vol.1, 32.


Conflict with Uthman :

Uthman recalled Abd Allah to Medina. He walked into the mosque, where Uthman was speaking, but the Caliph broke off his speech to insult Abd Allah. Aisha then interrupted with protests against this manner of speech "to a companion of Allah's Messenger". Uthman forbade Abd Allah ever to leave Medina again and ordered him out of the mosque. His servants removed Abd Allah so violently that they broke two of his ribs and, amid loud protests from Aisha, he had to be carried home.
-Abbott, N. (1942). Aishah the Beloved of Mohammed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.


Uthman did not pay Abd Allah's pension for the rest of his life.
-Muhammad ibn Saad. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir vol. 3. Translated by Bewley, A. (2013). The Companions of Badr. Loon:TaHa Publishers.

So , we have caliph Uthman taking all the evidence , ordering to everyone to burn the other manuscripts and make one copy of the Quran.
We don't know why , that's for sure - even when many Muslim are trying to justify it , it doesn't pass in any way.

This argument is not in any way connected to the belief system.

It is just an observation on the 'perserved Quran' as responce to the Islamic scholar community.

One may say that this is not evidence based position as one may say that this requires an extraordinary faith(which in some sense transforms in blind).

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Carl Sagan

 

[Augustus]

Might be of interest:

"throughout most of Islamic history there were open discussions about variant readings of the Qur’an. Things changed only in the early twentieth century. In 1924 a committee organized by the Egyptian ministry of education produced a text of the Qur’an for use within the country (and had competing editions sunk in the Nile River). This Egyptian text (slightly revised later in 1924, and again in 1936, the first year of King Farouk’s reign, for which reason it became known as the King Farouk Qur’an) has now become the standard Qur’an text. Today this text is so widespread it might lead one to conclude that the Qur’an has never had any variants. Yet this reflects the success of the Egyptian project, and not the history of the Qur’anic text.

Nevertheless, while the history of Qur’anic variants has long been a topic of academic discussion, it has also long been thought that at least the Qur’an’s consonantal skeleton was unchanging. Before the Sanaa palimpsest, no early manuscript was known to vary significantly in terms of that skeleton. The basic form of the Qur’anic text, in other words, was thought to have been more or less perfectly preserved. Yet the Sanaa manuscript, which is almost certainly the most ancient Qur’an manuscript known to us, contains a surprising number of variants, including completely different words, and presents the chapters (known as suras) of the Qur’an in a different order...

the Sanaa manuscript has so many variants that one might imagine it is a vestige of an ancient version that somehow survived Uthman’s burning of all versions of the Qur’an except his own. The problem with this idea is that the variants of that manuscript do not match the variants reported in medieval literature for those codices kept by companions of the Prophet. Sadeghi argues that this must have been the codex of some unknown companion. This is an interesting, although speculative, idea. For now all we know is that our most ancient manuscript of the Qur’an does not agree with the standard text read around the world today." (Variant Readings - GS Reynolds)

 

[Link]

You can't verify Quran (completely) based on history. Historically, it can be doubted. What I believe the collecting of Quran was really about was negating the influence of hadiths which even though forbidden to write, people wrote some of the commentary of Quran with them. It was to hide the commentary of Rasool (s).

The best means to verify the Quran is to see how it phases Surah to Surah (order matters) and to witness it's perfection and to witness the plan of ending Nubuwa and safeguarding Quran as the world comes together and day of judgment approaches.

 

[firedragon]

One might say, we have a Quran from some time between 568 and 645 AD.It makes it very close to the time when Mohammad lived.It is in Cadbury Research Library at the University of Birmingham, UK.

But as impressive as that looks when you dig a little bit things get to show up.
One of the many reasons i don't trust it.

Uthman produced a standardised version of the Qur'an in 652. He sent a copy to each province, and ordered that all other Quranic materials "whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies," must be burned.

It is said that Ibn Mas’ud was displeased by the finished product; in particular:
That he accused Uthman's scribes of adding three extra suras (1, 113 and 114) that had never been part of the original, and of making many other small changes to the text.
That he preached a sermon in Kufa in which he called Uthman's standardised Quran a "deceit". "And whoever deceives like this will bring his deceit on the Day of Resurrection … I like it better to read according to the recitation of him whom I love than that of Zayd ibn Thabit … If I knew anyone to be more conversant with Allah's Book than I am, I would surely go to him if camels could carry me there."
-Muhammad ibn Saad. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. Translated by Haq, S. M. (1972). Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir Volume II Parts I & II. Delhi: Kitab Bhavan.



When Uthman's agents came to Kufa to burn all the variants, Abd Allah hid his copy from them.
-Tirmidhi 44:3104

He justified his own version of the recitation by reminding people: "I recited before Allah's Messenger more than seventy suras of the Qur'an. His Companions know that I have a better understanding of Allah's Book than they do; and if I were to know that someone had a better understanding than I have, I would have gone to him." It was said that nobody could find fault with Abd Allah's version.

-Sahih Muslim 31:6022.

When Uthman was called to account for his mismanagement as Caliph, one of the grievances against him was that he had destroyed variant readings of the Qur'an.[5]: 156  Much later, Abd Allah ibn Masud's variant readings were discussed on equal terms with the Uthmanic text by al-Farra (d. 207/822).
-Gilliot, C. (2006). "Creation of a fixed text.' In Dammen McAuliffe, J. : The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an, p. 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

However, the vast majority of Muslim scholars never accepted these reports due to their weakness, as well as many strong reports indicating the exact opposite to be true.

The Qur'an says in 15:87 "We have given thee seven of the oft-repeated (verses) and the great Qur'an." The seven often-repeated verses refer to al-Fatihah, the first sura of the Qur'an, which Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud is alleged to have denied. However, quoting Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn adh-Dhurays, Ibn al-Munzar and Ibn Mardwiyah, as-Suyuti narrated the following:

It is narrated from Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, regarding the word of Allah, "We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses;" he said, "[It is] Fatihatu al-Kitab."
- as-Suyuti. Dur al-Manthur. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr). pp. Vol.5, 94.

In another narration, Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud was asked why he did not write al-Fatihah in his mushaf. He replied, "If I were to write it, I would write it before every sura." Abu Bakr al-Anbari explains this saying every raka’a (in prayers) starts with al-Fatiha and then another sura is recited. It is as if Ibn Masud said, "I have dropped it for the sake of brevity and I have trusted its preservation by Muslims (collectively)."
-al-Qurtubi. al-Jami' li-Ahkam al-Qur'an (also called Tafsir al-Qurtubi). Cairo: Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyah, 1964. pp. Vol.1 pg 115.

There are also narrations from Abd Allah where he explicitly refers to suras 113 and 114 as surahs, for example: "Excessively recite two surahs. Allah will make you reach higher ranks in the Hereafter because of them. They are al-Mu'awwidhatayn (i.e. al-Falaq and an-Nas/nos. 113 & 114)…"
-ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, Ali. Kanz al-Ummal: Hadith 2743. Beirut: ar-Resalah Publications, 1981.

Four qira'at of the Qur'an (Qira'at of Hamzah, 'Aasim, Khalaf, Al-Kisa'i) have chains of transmission (isnad) going through Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, and they all include the above three suras. These are mutawatir chains and thus Islamic scholars give precedence to them, disregarding much weaker chains that go against it as inauthentic.
-al-Jazri, Shams ad-Din. an-Nashr fi Qira'at al-'Ashr. (Cairo: Maktaba at-Tijariah al-Kubra, n.d.). pp. Vol1, 1 55, 165, 172, 185.

For these reasons, Islamic scholars rejected the notion of Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud rejecting suras. Al-Nawawi says: "The Muslims have all agreed that al-Mu'awwidhatayn and al-Fatihah are part of the Qur'an and whoever denies this becomes a disbeliever and whatever is quoted from Ibn Masud in this regard is not true."
-al-Suyuti. al-Ittiqan. pp. Vol.1, 271.

Ibn Hazm also rejected the notion of Ibn Masud denying these suras, along with the vast majority of Islamic scholars.
-Ibn Hazm. al-Muhalla. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.). pp. Vol.1, 32.


Conflict with Uthman :

Uthman recalled Abd Allah to Medina. He walked into the mosque, where Uthman was speaking, but the Caliph broke off his speech to insult Abd Allah. Aisha then interrupted with protests against this manner of speech "to a companion of Allah's Messenger". Uthman forbade Abd Allah ever to leave Medina again and ordered him out of the mosque. His servants removed Abd Allah so violently that they broke two of his ribs and, amid loud protests from Aisha, he had to be carried home.
-Abbott, N. (1942). Aishah the Beloved of Mohammed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.


Uthman did not pay Abd Allah's pension for the rest of his life.
-Muhammad ibn Saad. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir vol. 3. Translated by Bewley, A. (2013). The Companions of Badr. Loon:TaHa Publishers.

So , we have caliph Uthman taking all the evidence , ordering to everyone to burn the other manuscripts and make one copy of the Quran.
We don't know why , that's for sure - even when many Muslim are trying to justify it , it doesn't pass in any way.

This argument is not in any way connected to the belief system.

It is just an observation on the 'perserved Quran' as responce to the Islamic scholar community.

One may say that this is not evidence based position as one may say that this requires an extraordinary faith(which in some sense transforms in blind).

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Carl Sagan

So you're a hadith believer? Do you believe in all the ahadith and seerah or do you only pick and choose some that you like? What's your methodology?

Also, a hadith you faintly quoted about Uthman making a Qur'an etc, you missed to note that he borrowed Hafsa's Qur'an which means that existed prior to that. And he "returned" it to Hafsa which means this so called "Standardized Qur'an" already existed. All of that because you seem to be a hadith believer.

 

[Dimi95]

So you're a hadith believer?

I don't study Islam as a beliver , hadith is just there to be questioned as any other piece of History.

Do you believe in all the ahadith and seerah or do you only pick and choose some that you like?

Why is that question relevant?
I know that i have learned how they are being classified within Islam.
That's what is important.
I mentioned it because its context is relevant to the composing of the Quran.

Also, a hadith you faintly quoted about Uthman making a Qur'an etc, you missed to note that he borrowed Hafsa's Qur'an which means that existed prior to that.

Yes i know that.
I don't 'pick and choose'

Sahih al-Bukhari 4987
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

"Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to `Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before." So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an
was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt."

This is happening around 645-650 if i am right?
You can correct me if i am wrong..

We can see the evidence in the
-Birmingham Quran manuscript
-The Sanaa palimsest ,found in Yemen.

The Sanaa palimsest is very important since it is the only manuscript that can be traced by tradition to Muhhamad because of the lower texts.

We know that the upper layer is the standard text.
The lower text isn't!

It is the only single non-Uthmanic Qur'an.
Probably it's a so-called Companion Codex, otherwise lost and known through citations of later Muslim authors.
I recommend - "The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur'ān of the Prophet" from Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann.

There are almost certainly more than 60 differences, but it should be also noted that only a subset of the pages has been subjected to rigorous study. The folios discovered in the Eastern Library make up almost half the text, but have barely been studied.

This is yet to be studied.

The Sanaa manuscript show two different versions of the Quran.

I have been told that this is a 'typo'.

This is a rather big typo and 38 pages are 'erased'.
It is not just spelling mistakes, there are words missing, words added, and words changed.

For example,

Sahih International translation:
'… (if) they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth (any protector or helper.)

Sana'a manuscript translation:
'… (if) they turn away, Allah will punish them in this world. And there will not be for them on earth (any protector or helper.)'.

The 38 folios have around 1500 verses.
And there are more then 60 differences (as it is told by most scholars)

The Quran that you read today and the one from the time of Muhhamad is not the same.

And he "returned" it to Hafsa which means this so called "Standardized Qur'an" already existed. All of that because you seem to be a hadith believer.

Yes it existed , and it shows many variations..

 

[firedragon]

I don't study Islam as a beliver , hadith is just there to be questioned as any other piece of History.

Then you pick and choose ahadith as historical to consider. That's quote mining.

Yes i know that.

Great. Then your statement that Uthman standardized the Qur'an is wrong. Because Hafsa's copy existed prior to it and there is no indication it was changed by Uthman.

Sahih International translation:
'… (if) they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth (any protector or helper.)

Sana'a manuscript translation:
'… (if) they turn away, Allah will punish them in this world. And there will not be for them on earth (any protector or helper.)'.

The 38 folios have around 1500 verses.
And there are more then 60 differences (as it is told by most scholars)

So what's the textual variant?

 

[Dimi95]

Then you pick and choose ahadith as historical to consider.

No i referenced ahadith that speaks about the Quran and how it came to be.

And we have evidence of manuscripts that are dated 200 years prior to any ahadith.

So your best answer is 'you pick and choose'?

This has nothing to do with 'pick and choose' but rather it has to do with how the Quran came to be and not with anything else.

Not every ahadith speaks about how the Quran came to be.
Some speak about other things..

This pick and chose is low since the OS is not the complete answer.

That's quote mining.

No it isn't.

I have provided clarification,but you chose to answer only part of it.

Great. Then your statement that Uthman standardized the Qur'an is wrong.Because Hafsa's copy existed prior to it and there is no indication it was changed by Uthman.

Well that's not what the Sanaa palimpsest is suggesting..

The Sanaa palimpsest and the Birmingham Quran are the only manuscript evidence from that time.
One supports the Uthmanic version , one does not.

So what's the textual variant?

'..and the Hereafter' ,maybe?

You don't think that changes meaning?

 

[firedragon]

No i referenced ahadith that speaks about the Quran and how it came to be.

No you didn't. You referenced the hadith about Uthman, Hafsa, and the Qur'an ignoring Hafsa's copy and you made an absolutely erroneous claim about Uthman "standardizing the Qur'an". You are wrong. Anyway I beat this dead horse many a time and it's time to stop.

Mate. Textual critiques in the field do not mix ahadith and the text like you did. And they do not just rant off some number of variants with no clue of what you are talking about.

'..and the Hereafter' ,maybe?

That's English. It does not show a variant. It only shows a difference in the meaning of an English translation.

What's the variant you are referring to in the manuscript?Then one could look at the manuscript directly and make an analysis.

 

[Dimi95]

No you didn't. You referenced the hadith about Uthman, Hafsa, and the Qur'an ignoring Hafsa's copy and you made an absolutely erroneous claim about Uthman "standardizing the Qur'an".

You insist that this is somehow a big problem because you say that i am somehow ignoring Hafsa's copy,right?
Just because i did not state it untill i stated it,it does not mean that i was ignorant of it or ignoring it.
I did not ignore it , because Hafsa's copy does not solve anything and that can be seen in my explenations.
The topic is the Preservance of the Quran.
It's a discussion , it does not end within 3 answers.

I said in the OP:
"So , we have caliph Uthman taking all the evidence , ordering to everyone to burn the other manuscripts and make one copy of the Quran.
We don't know why , that's for sure - even when many Muslim are trying to justify it , it doesn't pass in any way."

This might be of any reason , but it is rather clear that Uthman made one copy of it, as to protect the one that his trustworthy circle taught to be the true one.
That's why he ordered the evidence to be burned,because of the many different Qurans.

We can see the differences and this is discussed within Islamic scholarship.
The good thing is that many admit this presents a challenge to Islamic scholar community and that Muslims should not make wild conclusions about it.
But questions have become more difficult for them and they see it.

You should look maybe up who are these people and what do they say.
This only tells that the Quran today is not the only one.
That means it has different interpretations and different usage of words.
This has nothing to do with belief , i noted that also in the OS ,

By that it does not mean that the Quran that you have today is false,but rather only technically debunks the false dogma of 'only one Quran'.
There are many other examples.

Quran is today readed in Arabic , but not all Arabic is the same and we can see that within different dialects.

After the death of Muhammad there were many disputes, and even assassination of two caliph leaders and we know from the begining that islamic sects apeared and that alone suggest also many possibilities for different interpretations of the Quran.
These are real issues , not some agendas.

That you are uninformed about it , that's another thing.

Standard Arabic is relevant , so i might ask you what do you know about standard Arabic?

I am not answering 'Has the Quran really not been altered since Muhammad's lifetime?' , just to let you know , maybe you will know the difference.

I am not interested in religious theories within them - neither the Muslim , neither the Christian or any other.

We have ways in social science how to deal with conclusions and that's it.
The Preservance of the Quran is a matter of History.
If you don't like it , then that's another thing.

You are wrong. Anyway I beat this dead horse many a time and it's time to stop.

You?
Who are you?
Are you a scholar?
Can i read some of your books,if you are?

Because those relevant that face this issue , they say that uninformes people make bold claims like you did in this case.
You should check the opinions of notable schollars , which are Immams btw.

Eventually , your exaggerating will transform in straw-man all the time , so i suggest to read a thing or two and then come back to discuss.

Mate.Textual critiques in the field do not mix ahadith and the text like you did.

But i understand the way they are taught to be reliable.
Because of the unreliable ones , we can see who are the reliable ones and what kind of information they give for the time of Muhhamad and the Caliphaze after his death.
I accept that.
I just used ahadith that is relevant to the preservation of the Quran and i explained what does it say.It says that the teaching that there was always only one Quran is a false dogma.

And they do not just rant off some number of variants with no clue of what you are talking about.

I explained why many variants are plausible in the first place.
What do you know about the Sanaa palimsest?

It's a good start that you don't know what i am talking about.
It suggest that you don't know if this is truth or false.

It would be good if you can name the scholars and quote some references.
I would certainly back up my sayings , but it is better if you can give some information so we can see the issue.

That's English. It does not show a variant. It only shows a difference in the meaning of an English translation.

Yes , it does , if you checked the translation then you would know that it is acknowledged within Islamic community.

Sanaa manuscript - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"The lower text of the Sana'a manuscript is capable of being distinguished from the upper text only in some folios, and several folios are so damaged as to be wholly unreadable, so Asma Hilali was able to transcribe the lower text contents of only 11 folios, in which she identified 61 non-orthographic variations from the 1924 Cairo edition."

You should check - Issues in current scholarship

What's the variant you are referring to in the manuscript?Then one could look at the manuscript directly and make an analysis.

Let's first see what is variation
Variation is a different or distinct form or version of something.

So in this case , punishment is not only in this world , but also in the Hereafter.

Punishment is not only in this verse , it is also in many other verses of the Quran.
Do you think that 'the Hereafter' changes understanding of other verses?

You can always check if the translation is correct or not.

 

[firedragon]

You insist that this is somehow a big problem because you say that i am somehow ignoring Hafsa's copy,right?
Just because i did not state it untill i stated it,it does not mean that i was ignorant of it or ignoring it.
I did not ignore it , because Hafsa's copy does not solve anything and that can be seen in my explenations.
The topic is the Preservance of the Quran.
It's a discussion , it does not end within 3 answers.

I said in the OP:
"So , we have caliph Uthman taking all the evidence , ordering to everyone to burn the other manuscripts and make one copy of the Quran.
We don't know why , that's for sure - even when many Muslim are trying to justify it , it doesn't pass in any way."

This might be of any reason , but it is rather clear that Uthman made one copy of it, as to protect the one that his trustworthy circle taught to be the true one.
That's why he ordered the evidence to be burned,because of the many different Qurans.

We can see the differences and this is discussed within Islamic scholarship.
The good thing is that many admit this presents a challenge to Islamic scholar community and that Muslims should not make wild conclusions about it.
But questions have become more difficult for them and they see it.

You should look maybe up who are these people and what do they say.
This only tells that the Quran today is not the only one.
That means it has different interpretations and different usage of words.
This has nothing to do with belief , i noted that also in the OS ,

By that it does not mean that the Quran that you have today is false,but rather only technically debunks the false dogma of 'only one Quran'.
There are many other examples.

Quran is today readed in Arabic , but not all Arabic is the same and we can see that within different dialects.

After the death of Muhammad there were many disputes, and even assassination of two caliph leaders and we know from the begining that islamic sects apeared and that alone suggest also many possibilities for different interpretations of the Quran.
These are real issues , not some agendas.

That you are uninformed about it , that's another thing.

Standard Arabic is relevant , so i might ask you what do you know about standard Arabic?

I am not answering 'Has the Quran really not been altered since Muhammad's lifetime?' , just to let you know , maybe you will know the difference.

I am not interested in religious theories within them - neither the Muslim , neither the Christian or any other.

We have ways in social science how to deal with conclusions and that's it.
The Preservance of the Quran is a matter of History.
If you don't like it , then that's another thing.


You?
Who are you?
Are you a scholar?
Can i read some of your books,if you are?

Because those relevant that face this issue , they say that uninformes people make bold claims like you did in this case.
You should check the opinions of notable schollars , which are Immams btw.

Eventually , your exaggerating will transform in straw-man all the time , so i suggest to read a thing or two and then come back to discuss.


But i understand the way they are taught to be reliable.
Because of the unreliable ones , we can see who are the reliable ones and what kind of information they give for the time of Muhhamad and the Caliphaze after his death.
I accept that.
I just used ahadith that is relevant to the preservation of the Quran and i explained what does it say.It says that the teaching that there was always only one Quran is a false dogma.



I explained why many variants are plausible in the first place.
What do you know about the Sanaa palimsest?

It's a good start that you don't know what i am talking about.
It suggest that you don't know if this is truth or false.

It would be good if you can name the scholars and quote some references.
I would certainly back up my sayings , but it is better if you can give some information so we can see the issue.


Yes , it does , if you checked the translation then you would know that it is acknowledged within Islamic community.

Sanaa manuscript - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"The lower text of the Sana'a manuscript is capable of being distinguished from the upper text only in some folios, and several folios are so damaged as to be wholly unreadable, so Asma Hilali was able to transcribe the lower text contents of only 11 folios, in which she identified 61 non-orthographic variations from the 1924 Cairo edition."

You should check - Issues in current scholarship



Let's first see what is variation
Variation is a different or distinct form or version of something.

So in this case , punishment is not only in this world , but also in the Hereafter.

Punishment is not only in this verse , it is also in many other verses of the Quran.
Do you think that 'the Hereafter' changes understanding of other verses?

You can always check if the translation is correct or not.

Red herring.

Give me the exact variant you quoted in "ENGLISH". Give me the manuscript number and the exact variant. If not, you have not done the research. Cheers.

 

[Dimi95]

Red herring.

Give me the exact variant you quoted in "ENGLISH". Give me the manuscript number and the exact variant. If not, you have not done the research. Cheers.

You should really stop accusing me.

Folio Number 20a ,lower text is Surah 9:70-81

It is published by:
Gerd-Rüdiger Puin.

Variation means when there is a change because of added/erased texts.

What do you think that variation means?

In the verse that i mentioned which is a part of Surah 9:74
'the Hereafter' does not exist in the lower Text.

One version teaches that punishment is only in this world, and the other teaches that the punishment continues in the hereafter.

That's two different teachings and automatically that is a variation.

 

[firedragon]

You should really stop accusing me.

Folio Number 20a ,lower text is Surah 9:70-81

It is published by:
Gerd-Rüdiger Puin.

Variation means when there is a change because of added/erased texts.

What do you think that variation means?

In the verse that i mentioned which is a part of Surah 9:74
'the Hereafter' does not exist in the lower Text.

One version teaches that punishment is only in this world, and the other teaches that the punishment continues in the hereafter.

That's two different teachings and automatically that is a variation.

Just a red herring.

Give me the exact variant you quoted in "ENGLISH". Give me the manuscript number and the exact variant. If not, you have not done the research. Cheers.

 

[Dimi95]

Just a red herring.

Give me the exact variant you quoted in "ENGLISH". Give me the manuscript number and the exact variant. If not, you have not done the research. Cheers.

Just another repeated empty accusation

Sana manuscript
Folio Number 20a , the 'lower' or erased text is Surah 9:70-81

When you find the missing 'Al-Akhirah' , please let me know.

I will not repeat myself.

 

[firedragon]

Just another repeated empty accusation

Mate. A variant has to be in the original language and its original script. Of course there are variants. But it's not in English.

If you don't understand that, it's a waste of time. Cheers.

 

[Dimi95]

Mate. A variant has to be in the original language and its original script. Of course there are variants. But it's not in English.

If you don't understand that, it's a waste of time. Cheers.

Variants are there , you explain them in English or Arabic it is the same.

You are shifting the burden of proof and the second part is just ad hominem and argument of ignorance.

 

[firedragon]

You are shifting the burden of proof

Of course not. You are committing a burden of proof fallacy. It's your proposition so you have to come with the proof.

Since you don't know what you are talking about in depth, just own up. If not provide the exact proof and let's analyze together. That's what I am asking for mate. Give the exact variance and the manuscripts you are comparing.

 

[Dimi95]

Of course not. You are committing a burden of proof fallacy. It's your proposition so you have to come with the proof.

And i did , if you read everything from the OS , you would have understood.

Since you don't know what you are talking about in depth, just own up.

Another ad-hominem.

If not provide the exact proof and let's analyze together. That's what I am asking for mate. Give the exact variance and the manuscripts you are comparing.

Dude like you can't get 2+2 or what?
We are comparing Arabic from 7th Century CE so that means Birminghan Manuscript and Sanaa manuacript.

You can't find 9:74 or what?

 

[firedragon]

We are comparing Arabic from 7th Century CE so that means Birminghan Manuscript and Sanaa manuacript.

Great. Give me the exact verse, the variant, and the manuscript tag name from the sanaa. Birmingham I will figure out no problem.

Thanks.

 

[Dimi95]

Great. Give me the exact verse, the variant, and the manuscript tag name from the sanaa. Birmingham I will figure out no problem.

Thanks.

Here is a refence link If works for you.

The Sanʿaʾ Palimpsest: Materializing the Codices.

Considered one of the most important documents in the history of the transmission of the Qurʾān, the Sanʿāʾ palimpsest (Codex Sanʿāʾ 1) is remarkable because of its unique lower text (i.e., erased text), which differs from the canonical edition in

www.academia.edu

Here you can find all neccessary information.

It will take a time to find it , but if this does not work for you , when i get home i will provide the information, i just have to look up in the Archive.

 

[firedragon]

Here is a refence link If works for you.

The Sanʿaʾ Palimpsest: Materializing the Codices.

Considered one of the most important documents in the history of the transmission of the Qurʾān, the Sanʿāʾ palimpsest (Codex Sanʿāʾ 1) is remarkable because of its unique lower text (i.e., erased text), which differs from the canonical edition in

www.academia.edu

Here you can find all neccessary information.

It will take a time to find it , but if this does not work for you , when i get home i will provide the information, i just have to look up in the Archive.

Brother. I didn't ask for some link. Since you are making a claim, you should have some epistemic responsibility. Provide the manuscript tag number, give the exact verse you are comparing with Birmingham and the Sanaa palimpsest, and then it will show that you have done your research. If you cannot, just leave it. Admit that you cannot and you have not done the research. No one knows you personally here so you will never lose anything.

Cheers.