Was Muhammad Schizophrenic?

[Rival]

There is a rich and fascinating history there and I have only touched the surface on a few occasions. I have read several broader history texts that provide reviews and greater, but limited detail on significant events. Like biblical history, there is much that is unknown or lost.

It certainly appeared over a brief span than the Bible. I am unfamiliar with the reference to the examination of older copies. That is interesting and obviously confounding.

Have I missed the fact that you are muslim or are you just expressing a keen knowledge of the history of the Qur'an? I can be obtuse like that sometimes.

I just have an interest in Islam.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just have an interest in Islam.

Me too, though clearly not with the depth of knowledge that you have expressed.

 

[firedragon]

He may have had some periods of forgetfulness. I have read in Hadiths that for six months he was afflicted by black magic and did not know if he had had sex or not. You see, now-a-days people do not know these things, but they did happen in olden times.

What is the historicity of that Hadith? Being a non-muslim have you not made a rational search for the historicity of this story?

But you seem you are very sure this really happened judging by your statements. Do you really have so much faith in this story? Great.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just have an interest in Islam.

I just thought the premise of the OP was interesting. Even if it were shown that Muhammad were suffering from an illness like schizophrenia, would that, of itself, invalidate his message? It would make it more challenging to deliver and accept in this day and age, but that is not evidence of the divinity of the message.

 

[Rival]

I just thought the premise of the OP was interesting. Even if it were shown that Muhammad were suffering from an illness like schizophrenia, would that, of itself, invalidate his message? It would make it more challenging to deliver and accept in this day and age, but that is not evidence of the divinity of the message.

I agree. It's a complicated issue.

 

[firedragon]

As far as we can discern, the Qur'an just appeared to come from nowhere. It's very strange how it just kind of appears one day. We have old copies and using new techniques we can find old writing underneath the current writing and it doesn't say the same thing, though is clearly a Qur'anic verse. It does appear to be an edit job, but when, how and by who we only have a little clue in Abd Al-Malik, the Islamic King at the time. He seems to be connected to this. At the time the Arabs 'explode' out of Arabia and start conquering, there's not even a mention of Muhammad or Muslims (only we see Ishmaelites, Hagarites or such, but no 'Muslim' designation) at a time when Islamic narrative tells us we should see those things, so it's hard to put together.

You are completely mistaken Rival. The upper text and the lower text does not show an "edit job" as you said. This is just for your information. Lets see if I can explain this properly.

The Sana manuscript is what you are referring to, not all the early manuscripts. The manuscript is a palimpsest as you very well know. The lower text is obviously the older text which was washed off and the upper text is what was written in the blank skin after it was washed off. If it was an "edit job" you will find the same verses changed. Thats not what occurred. So to be frank a lot of people who speak about this manuscript on the internet saying these "edit job" ideas are simply "Ignorant or lying pretending to know exactly what it is".

Take the folio 2. One folio has two sides right? The older text was the 6th chapter. The new text is the 2nd chapter.

This only means that the student of the Qur'an who was writing this down in the Hijazi script had simply washed off the whole collection of pages and then re written the whole Quran on a blank set of skin. That is not showing an edit job, it is a rewriting.

Hope you understand.

 

[Rival]

You are completely mistaken Rival. The upper text and the lower text does not show an "edit job" as you said. This is just for your information. Lets see if I can explain this properly.

The Sana manuscript is what you are referring to, not all the early manuscripts. The manuscript is a palimpsest as you very well know. The lower text is obviously the older text which was washed off and the upper text is what was written in the blank skin after it was washed off. If it was an "edit job" you will find the same verses changed. Thats not what occurred. So to be frank a lot of people who speak about this manuscript on the internet saying these "edit job" ideas are simply "Ignorant or lying pretending to know exactly what it is".

Take the folio 2. One folio has two sides right? The older text was the 6th chapter. The new text is the 2nd chapter.

This only means that the student of the Qur'an who was writing this down in the Hijazi script had simply washed off the whole collection of pages and then re written the whole Quran on a blank set of skin. That is not showing an edit job, it is a rewriting.

Hope you understand.

I watched it on a comparatively recent documentary. If the writing were not changed it would not be news; there were changes to make it comply with Uthmanic texts; is this not significant? When you change a text to make it conform to another, this is meddling, no?

Secondly, why are they scrubbing and rewriting? Is that not haram? If a Jew miswrites a Torah Scroll, the whole thing is invalid and he has to start again on an other scroll.

Understanding the Sana’a manuscript find.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, rewriting, and re-writing will depend on the mercy of the new writer.
We have the same problem with Vedas. They are at least 6,000 yeas old. The language changed a few times, the locale changed (perhaps from Kurgan region to India, after all the Indo-Europeans were herders), climate changed (in Central Asia rains came around autumnal equinox and not around summer solstice, and the book were written in the language of the age, and that is known as 'Samhita' (Recompilation). Whatever the Indo-Europeans spoke, then old Vedic and finally the new Vedic. So we believe, many of the older verses which were not clearly understood may have been lost.

 

[firedragon]

I watched it on a comparatively recent documentary. If the writing were not changed it would not be news; there were changes to make it comply with Uthmanic texts; is this not significant? When you change a text to make it conform to another, this is meddling, no?

Secondly, why are they scrubbing and rewriting? Is that not haram? If a Jew miswrites a Torah Scroll, the whole thing is invalid and he has to start again on an other scroll.

Understanding the Sana’a manuscript find.

Nope. That was the practice. This is not a scroll, this is a palimpsest. You don't throw it and start on it a new one, you erase it and start again.

Whatever the documentary you watched was, they have completely given you an absolutely wrong picture or maybe they did not communicate the intricacies, but only the surface.

1. Can you lets say quote me a folio where the same verse has been changed or edited to look like the uthmanic text? Specific reference pls.

2. Also, what is this "Uthmanic text" that your documentary was talking about? Where did they find it from to compare with the Sanaa palimpsest? Can you quote direct and specific details?

Peace.

 

[Rival]

Nope. That was the practice. This is not a scroll, this is a palimpsest. You don't throw it and start on it a new one, you erase it and start again.

Whatever the documentary you watched was, they have completely given you an absolutely wrong picture or maybe they did not communicate the intricacies, but only the surface.

1. Can you lets say quote me a folio where the same verse has been changed or edited to look like the uthmanic text? Specific reference pls.

2. Also, what is this "Uthmanic text" that your documentary was talking about? Where did they find it from to compare with the Sanaa palimpsest? Can you quote direct and specific details?

Peace.

If I can find the documentary I will get back to you. I think it may have been removed though.

In any case, there are more versions than one of the Qur'anic text and by Uthmanic I believe they meant whichever texts the Qur'an is taken from today. I recall the Uthmanic recension and tradition saying he burnt all the other variant manuscripts and whichever manuscript he saved, this one now agrees with.

 

[firedragon]

If I can find the documentary I will get back to you. I think it may have been removed though.

In any case, there are more versions than one of the Qur'anic text and by Uthmanic I believe they meant whichever texts the Qur'an is taken from today. I recall the Uthmanic recension and tradition saying he burnt all the other variant manuscripts and whichever manuscript he saved, this one now agrees with.

Nope. Absolutely mistaken brother. Absolutely. Find the documentary, and quote me this "Uthmanic Text" that they are comparing with. After that we shall explore this matter further.

Also, we were discussing your wrong notion of this "Edit Job", not the Hadith about Uthmanic manuscript. So that's actually not relevant. Yet, if you do wish to discuss this matter, that's fine. The Hadith does not say he burnt all. He returned Hafzas manuscript. Read the Hadith again. You see, most people who repeat this story don't repeat the whole thing for whatever reason.

This is not relevant to your misunderstanding, and trust you will not be able to answer the questions I asked on this subject.

1. Can you lets say quote me a folio where the same verse has been changed or edited to look like the uthmanic text? Specific reference pls.

I will give you another example and portray what specific and simple info shows. Any amateur or master can take one folio and take the image of the lower text and compare and find out what the text and the chapter-verses are.

Take the folio 3. Lower text is Surah attauba. Upper text is Surah Alfathir. Two different chapters, two different set of verses. Again, if its editing then it would be the same verses erased and over written. This is a palimpsest, so the student has erased the whole set of folio's and completely rewritten it.

Cheers.

 

[Rival]

Nope. Absolutely mistaken brother. Absolutely. Find the documentary, and quote me this "Uthmanic Text" that they are comparing with. After that we shall explore this matter further.

What it means is, whichever surah it is is not really the point here; the point is it does not agree with any of the texts we have after the Uthmanic recension. What is of interest here is that this seems to defy the traditional Islamic narrative that the Qur'an is how the Qur'an was when Muhammad recieved it.

Also, we were discussing your wrong notion of this "Edit Job", not the Hadith about Uthmanic manuscript. So that's actually not relevant. Yet, if you do wish to discuss this matter, that's fine. The Hadith does not say he burnt all. He returned Hafzas manuscript. Read the Hadith again. You see, most people who repeat this story don't repeat the whole thing for whatever reason.

The hadith says,

"So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az Zubair, Said bin Al-As and Abdur Rahman 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 Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Quran 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 Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Zayd bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. [That verse was]: 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'"

What it appears to be saying is that Hafsa had the manuscripts that Uthman agreed with and copied those and sent out those copies of the Hafsa manuscript to the provinces. The other manuscripts he burned. So what I read from this is that the reason he used Hafsa's manuscripts at all is because Uthman agreed they were already the correct ones, so there should be no difference between those and the ones Uthman copied and sent out. Maybe I'm mistaken, but this is how it reads to me.

1. Can you lets say quote me a folio where the same verse has been changed or edited to look like the uthmanic text? Specific reference pls.

I thought that is the whole point of this conversation? That this did happen.

'The upper text has been found to be the standard Uthmanic Qur’an we have today. The main differences between the Uthmanic Qur’an and the upper Sana’a’ text are mostly due to how words are spelled.'

'The lower text of the sana’a’ manuscripts are of enormous interest because they are considered to be non-Uthmanic. '

Understanding the Sana’a manuscript find.

That's an edit job, no?

 

[firedragon]

What it means is, whichever surah it is is not really the point here; the point is it does not agree with any of the texts we have after the Uthmanic recension.

\Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Maybe you should study the subject a bit prior to making that kind of confident statement.

"So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az Zubair, Said bin Al-As and Abdur Rahman 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 Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Quran 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 Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Zayd bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. [That verse was]: 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'"

What it appears to be saying is that Hafsa had the manuscripts that Uthman agreed with and copied those and sent out those copies of the Hafsa manuscript to the provinces. The other manuscripts he burned. So what I read from this is that the reason he used Hafsa's manuscripts at all is because Uthman agreed they were already the correct ones, so there should be no difference between those and the ones Uthman copied and sent out. Maybe I'm mistaken, but this is how it reads to me.

Irrelevant to the manuscript tradition which is a different subject so wrong path to take. Also, when someone uses "manuscript he agreed with" it does not show analysis. How do you know that he picked Hafza's manuscript simply because "he agreed with it"? Brother, that was pure speculation. Did you not think that maybe Hafza had the closer-to-the-source suhuf than some random writings found here and there? Anyway, this is irrelevant.

I thought that is the whole point of this conversation? That this did happen.

'The upper text has been found to be the standard Uthmanic Qur’an we have today. The main differences between the Uthmanic Qur’an and the upper Sana’a’ text are mostly due to how words are spelled.'

'The lower text of the sana’a’ manuscripts are of enormous interest because they are considered to be non-Uthmanic. '

Understanding the Sana’a manuscript find.

That's an edit job, no?

Thats not an answer to the question.

Can you lets say quote me a folio where the same verse has been changed or edited to look like the uthmanic text? Specific reference pls.

I said you will not be able to answer this question.

So you have given a link to a website. Let me ask you about the Quran image of Sanaa in that page. Tell me what Surah is the lower text from, and what surah is the upper text from?

 

[Rival]

\Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Maybe you should study the subject a bit prior to making that kind of confident statement.



Irrelevant to the manuscript tradition which is a different subject so wrong path to take. Also, when someone uses "manuscript he agreed with" it does not show analysis. How do you know that he picked Hafza's manuscript simply because "he agreed with it"? Brother, that was pure speculation. Did you not think that maybe Hafza had the closer-to-the-source suhuf than some random writings found here and there? Anyway, this is irrelevant.



Thats not an answer to the question.

Can you lets say quote me a folio where the same verse has been changed or edited to look like the uthmanic text? Specific reference pls.

I said you will not be able to answer this question.

So you have given a link to a website. Let me ask you about the Quran image of Sanaa in that page. Tell me what Surah is the lower text from, and what surah is the upper text from?

So I'm confused.

What do you believe about this? I agree with you that the surahs are what you say they are; I don't know what your contention is. I'm not sure what we disagree on? The surah that was wiped away and copied over was non-Uthmanic. I'm at a loss as to why you appear to disagree with this; that's the whole reason this manuscript is so famous.

 

[firedragon]

So I'm confused.

What do you believe about this? I agree with you that the surahs are what you say they are; I don't know what your contention is. I'm not sure what we disagree on? The surah that was wiped away and copied over was non-Uthmanic. I'm at a loss as to why you appear to disagree with this; that's the whole reason this manuscript is so famous.

Well, you are repeating the same thing non-uthmanic. Prove it. Show me the difference and show me the uthmanic text you are speaking about and the comparison.

The manuscript maybe famous, but you have learned about it from absolutely sophomore sources. Sorry to say that but its the fact. You have heard "famous" statements from non-scholarly sources who are actually the people make the biggest noise. Take a step back, find your academic approach and look at it again.

What you are saying is that it's an "edit job" thinking people have edited a majorly established Quranic canon that Uthman himself placed in some preservation. Nope. This is an amateur of the Hijazi script who has written it and make some spelling errors. Ill give you an example an error he has made. When writing a Quran listening to a Hafiz you you cannot stop to ponder, and an amateur does not have the fluidity of writing the script. Some letters like the fa, and khaf vary when writing in the middle of a word, and at the end. He has neglected that variance sometimes. So that's an error in writing and should be corrected.

This is not the way my friend. This is not to offend you, but your approach is absolutely wrong.

 

[Rival]

What you are saying is that it's an "edit job" thinking people have edited a majorly established Quranic canon that Uthman himself placed in some preservation.

I can grasp the rest of what you wrote, but this above is not what I'm saying bro. I'm saying that which did not agree with the majorly established canon was rubbed away and replaced with that canon when that canon was established. Unless I am misreading you?

 

[firedragon]

I can grasp the rest of what you wrote, but this above is not what I'm saying bro. I'm saying that which did not agree with the majorly established canon was rubbed away and replaced with that canon when that canon was established. Unless I am misreading you?

Brother, let me ask you again.

What is this text that "did not agree". Give me the yardstick, and the disagreement, with direct reference. If you explore trying to gather this information, you will understand. Maybe.

Yes, you have absolutely misread me and I don't think you will understand either if you do not explore the way I keep telling you to. Don't follow unscholarly sources. There nothing called a "canon of the Quran". It is not a Quranic idea.

Try to understand this. You and I have paper to write and throw away. Its cheap. Palimsests were expensive, and were reused, and reused. This is how it is throughout the ages. So these folios were just reused. Not edited, some canon washing and a rewriting of a new canon or anything of the sort. All of this you are saying are not scholarly conclusions, and I don't know what your sources are but they are simply absurd. And what is this canon you are speaking about? Lets say you copy the Bible today to practice writing Greek. Do you consider your writing "a canon"? Frankly, if you tell this to a scholar who analyzed the Sanaa manuscript it will sound like a silly joke. I am not disrespecting you, but I am trying to show you the distance between your perception and the scholarship on the matter.

I don't know mate. Try and understand.

 

[Rival]

Brother, let me ask you again.

What is this text that "did not agree". Give me the yardstick, and the disagreement, with direct reference. If you explore trying to gather this information, you will understand. Maybe.

Yes, you have absolutely misread me and I don't think you will understand either if you do not explore the way I keep telling you to. Don't follow unscholarly sources. There nothing called a "canon of the Quran". It is not a Quranic idea.

Try to understand this. You and I have paper to write and throw away. Its cheap. Palimsests were expensive, and were reused, and reused. This is how it is throughout the ages. So these folios were just reused. Not edited, some canon washing and a rewriting of a new canon or anything of the sort. All of this you are saying are not scholarly conclusions, and I don't know what your sources are but they are simply absurd. And what is this canon you are speaking about? Lets say you copy the Bible today to practice writing Greek. Do you consider your writing "a canon"? Frankly, if you tell this to a scholar who analyzed the Sanaa manuscript it will sound like a silly joke. I am not disrespecting you, but I am trying to show you the distance between your perception and the scholarship on the matter.

I don't know mate. Try and understand.

Perhaps you could point me to a scholarly source in English that I can read?

Also, if there is no Qur'anic canon, I am also confused. If two ayat do not agree, for the purpose of the Shariah, for example, which one would be used?

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps you could point me to a scholarly source in English that I can read?

Also, if there is no Qur'anic canon, I am also confused. If two ayat do not agree, for the purpose of the Shariah, for example, which one would be used?

Can you give me a real example of what you mean by "not agree"?

Show me these two verses, what the differences are, how it affects the "Shariah" as you said, and then we shall see. Specific. I have asked you the same thing multiple times but you don't seem to provide something to just portray the specificity of your question. Its very important to take that academic approach, or there is no real point actually in making hypothesis and responding to a hypothesis without quantifying that hypothesis. Your question "if two ayat do not agree, ...Shariah...." is a question based on a hypothesis. Generally even to ask a question of hypothesis you have to first do a qualitative study. At least one single example. And then you should do a quantitative study to make a broader general assessment of this "Agree and disagree and shariah etc".

Okay, if you wish to read some scholarly work you should maybe read some Nicolai Sinai material. Its pretty good. By the way, with all due respect to the website you provided, it's less than sophomore. The guy has never seen a manuscript, and never analyzed it. He is making speculative statements.

 

[Rival]

Can you give me a real example of what you mean by "not agree"?

You said there's no Qur'anic canon, so this means there must be some differences between manuscripts.

Okay, if you wish to read some scholarly work you should maybe read some Nicolai Sinai material. Its pretty good.

Thanks.