Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Qur'anic studies today

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 05, 2024, 06:19 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2024, 03:51 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM
New Britain
October 30, 2024, 08:34 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
October 30, 2024, 08:22 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 28, 2024, 09:26 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
October 22, 2024, 09:05 PM
Tariq Ramadan Accused of ...
September 11, 2024, 01:37 PM
France Muslims were in d...
September 05, 2024, 03:21 PM
What's happened to the fo...
September 05, 2024, 12:00 PM
German nationalist party ...
September 04, 2024, 03:54 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 1482923 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 80 81 8283 84 ... 369 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2430 - July 05, 2018, 09:02 PM
    Quote
    Why cant the superior layer be Uthmanic considering the timetable you use here?


    The scriptio superior is ʿUthmānic.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2431 - July 05, 2018, 09:19 PM
    Magraye,

    Quote
    However one looks at it, the manuscript evidence does not IMO support a mid-Umayyad codification for the Quran under ʿAbd al-Malik.


    Do I understand you correctly that you see the canonisation as earlier than Malik?

    Quote
    The scriptio superior is ʿUthmānic.


    Ok, I follow that, but I still see some doubts it might even  be earlier seen the early C14...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2432 - July 05, 2018, 09:20 PM
    Yes. The evidence does not support the mid-Umayyad model.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2433 - July 05, 2018, 09:24 PM
    Yes Mundi, he follows the narrative. The only issue is that we only do know the codex of Malik, modified by Hajjaj. And not the Utmanic one.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2434 - July 05, 2018, 09:26 PM
    Haha, you are being to harsh, dear Altara. I do not blindly follow the narrative. My position is based on the actual manuscript evidence. I know of the mid-Umayyad model and I am yet to be convinced.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2435 - July 05, 2018, 09:26 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 05, 2018, 09:20 PM
    Yes. The evidence does not support the mid-Umayyad model.


    In that case, what are the modifications of Hajjaj ? Why people state this kind of event if it has not existed?  This is nonsense...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2436 - July 05, 2018, 09:29 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 05, 2018, 09:26 PM
    Haha, you are being to harsh, dear Altara. I do not blindly follow the narrative. My position is based on the actual manuscript evidence. I know of the mid-Umayyad model and I am yet to be convinced.


    The issue is that we do not have all the MS production of this time. It might be dangerous to consider them as representative of "what really happened" and establish from that point an argumentation.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2437 - July 05, 2018, 09:34 PM
    Okay. The consonantal skeleton was established by the mid-seventh century and is very constant across the hijazid manuscripts, as has been shown by several scholars. But what about the changes that occurred after the year 690 CE? That is a very good question. These changes are not to the text, but due to the addition of diacritics and vowelings. In other words, orthographic improvements. Hajjaj, for instance, added the medial alif, as can be seen in Mingana 1572a. This is what the manuscripts tell us.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2438 - July 05, 2018, 10:20 PM
    Magraye and Altara,

    This discussion shows how important C14 is.  You both have logical scenarios. And I want to add mine of 630 canonization...
    A reliable C14 could resolve this puzzle.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2439 - July 05, 2018, 11:40 PM
    Quote
    Hajjaj, for instance, added the medial alif, as can be seen in Mingana 1572a. This is what the manuscripts tell us.


    It seems that we do not have MS before 1572A which is a part of the Arabe 328 (?) Except the Sanaa palimpsest. The Sanaa palimpsest shows clearly that there was multiple Quranic texts : different ones, different rasm. It mean, I think many things. I recall here that I think that the writing of the Quran was finished in 600.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2440 - July 05, 2018, 11:44 PM
    I meas, yeah, the writing could have been finished earlier on. Come to think of it, that is a given. A written text must already be in place in order for it to be canonized. Yes, Mingana 1572a is part of Arabe 328c. Not really sure what you mean by multiple Quranic texts. You gave Sanaa as an example, but as I said in a previous comment, the variants are not that significant, at least IMO.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2441 - July 05, 2018, 11:50 PM
    How would a text like the Quran emerge? I think it is quite realistic that an new political and military force needed its own ideology with its own Holy book (that was important in 7thC).
    How does one get a book in the 7th C? You order one in a sympathetic scribal center and you pay them. It needed to be canonized quickly, since in 7th C having a fluid Holy text would not do. Corruption of texts was a hot topic amongst Jews and Christians at the time.
    So a very early emergence and very early canonisation is a very logical process for the Quran.
    The genesis of the New Testament is completely different with a logical longer fluid period.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2442 - July 06, 2018, 10:55 AM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 05, 2018, 11:44 PM
    You gave Sanaa as an example, but as I said in a previous comment, the variants are not that significant, at least IMO.


    What you call "variants" is in fact "differences" and what is "different" is not the same. Therefore yes, the Sanaa palimpsest is NOT (rasm, sura order, verses adding/lacking, etc) the codex we have today, it is ANOTHER codex. So there were different codexes.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2443 - July 07, 2018, 04:18 AM
    Quote
    How would a text like the Quran emerge?

     

    You have to work to comprehend  Afro
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2444 - July 07, 2018, 11:17 AM
    Quote from: Altara on July 06, 2018, 10:55 AM
    What you call "variants" is in fact "differences" and what is "different" is not the same. Therefore yes, the Sanaa palimpsest is NOT (rasm, sura order, verses adding/lacking, etc)

    I actually wonder about carbon dating accuracy of those Sanaa Quran manuscripts from that wall of Yemen Mosque ..  If I remember correctly (some where it is published )  Sanaa Quran manuscripts carbon dated as the year 692 with some 90% accuracy... (NOT SURE ABOUT THEIR ERROR BARS)..

    So the question now is,   if we eliminate Muhammad(prophet of Islam)  and those four rightly guided caliphs .. THE  RASCALS OF ISLAM.. THE ALLEGED  TWO FATHER IN-LAWS & TWO SON IN-LAWS of alleged prophet   and all these TEN   QURAN ENCHILADAS OF ISLAM ((the chain of narrators of Quran))  from the history of Islam ..
    Quote
    Umar ibn al Khattab ., Uthman bin Affan ., Ali ibn abi Talib ., Abu Musa al Ash'ari ., Ubay Ibn Ka'b., Abdullah ibn Masood., Zayd Ibn Thabit., Abu Hurairah., Abdullah Ibn Abbas., Abu al-Darda

     if we remove all those guys as silly stories of Islam from hadith.,   then the questions to answer  are  

    1) . who were the authors of those Sana Quran codex in the year 692?  

    2).  why were they found that far   in Yemen if we assume, Islam and   Quran appears to be originated some where in Syria/Jordan/Israel/Eastern Arabia/Iraq...??
     
    Quote
    the codex we have today, it is ANOTHER codex. So there were different codexes.

    Well I am not sure that the present Quran should be considered  as Quran codex..  IT IS A BOOK OF MANY  QURAN CODICES AND CONFUSION .,    On top of that.  rascals added and removed verses here and there and  and juggled those surahs around and filled the book  with irrelevant alleged revelation order ..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2445 - July 07, 2018, 11:52 AM
    Quote
    I actually wonder about carbon dating accuracy of those Sanaa Quran manuscripts


    Dear Yeezevee, You should  wonder about all  carbon dating accuracy of those Ms (including Arabe 328, the Birmingham codex...) because we have a big issue with calibration (mandatory to have a "real" dating).
    You know that I consider the Quranic corpus as very early (550-600) therefore the date given by C14 should convenient me! But! I know the calibration problem! Raised pertinently by Guillaume (William in English) Dye. He's perfectly right about that.

    Quote
    1) . who were the authors of those Sana Quran codex in the year 692? 


    As I have already told this forum, I have a complete explication of the stuff to propose but it is not the place.... And I think it is the real real stuff : rationale, coherent with the sources at our disposal, etc. Setting aside the bla bla bla Zem Zem, Khalid ibn Walid, Abu Bakr (in the cave!)  "prophet Muhammad", angel Gabriel and all the stuff.
    Quote
    2).  why were they found that far   in Yemen if we assume, Islam and   Quran appears to be originated some where in Syria/Jordan/Israel/Eastern Arabia/Iraq...??


    The issue is that we do not know the REAL dating of the Sanaa palimpsest.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2446 - July 07, 2018, 04:41 PM
    Quote from: Altara on July 07, 2018, 11:52 AM
    Dear Yeezevee, You should  wonder about all  carbon dating accuracy of those Ms (including Arabe 328, the Birmingham codex...) because we have a big issue with calibration (mandatory to have a "real" dating).
    You know that I consider the Quranic corpus as very early (550-600) therefore the date given by C14 should convenient me! But! I know the calibration problem! Raised pertinently by Guillaume (William in English) Dye. He's perfectly right about that....................

    The issue is that we do not know the REAL dating of the Sanaa palimpsest.

    you are absolutely correct in your assessment of these so-called Quran  codices dear Altara.,  in fact we discussed this  carbon dating  problem in different forums.. including this one

    https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg829236#msg829236
    https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg829293#msg829293
    https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg876315#msg876315
    https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg829245#msg829245
    https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg829079#msg829079
    https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg829288#msg829288

    with best regards
    yeezevee
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2447 - July 07, 2018, 08:02 PM
    Everyone agrees that the Sanaa palimpsest is a seventh century manuscript and that it is the oldest one. Francois Déroche, a well known critic of radiocarbon dating, dates the palimpsest to the last half of the 1st/7th century CE—that is, between 650 and 685 CE. His dating is thus not based on radiocarbon results. Other critics of the radiocarbon dating have also dated it to the same date range, such as Mohammad Lamsiah. Different labs gave different results, as both of you are well aware. I could briefly discuss them, or the more controversial results, if you want.

    For a discussion of radiocarbon dating, please read  the article by islamic-awareness.org. Very insightful, removing many misconceptions about method. Note that I am not saying that one should blindly rely on it either. Instead, one should compare the results from those of philology, paleography, and history.

    H.S. 44/32 is located in Turkey, but that does not imply that the Quran originated in Turkey. Same is the case with the Cairo Codex. Just because it is located in Cairo does not mean it originated there. I could give additional examples.

    Not sure how this ties into our discussion of the Quran's final redaction and whether that redaction occurred and ʿUthmān (mid-seventh century hypothesis) or ʿAbd al-Malik (mid-Umayyad hypothesis). Both alternatives are possible, but I opted for the former and gave the reasons as to why, relying primarily on the manuscript evidence (there are others reasons as well).

    A lot of manuscripts are Syrian. Not all, but some are. For instance, most of the “canonical” variants (i.e. those recognized by the later Islamic tradition) found in BNF Arabe 328 (second oldest Quran) correspond to the reading of Ibn ʿĀmir, the Syrian.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2448 - July 07, 2018, 09:20 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 07, 2018, 08:02 PM

    .................H.S. 44/32 is located in Turkey, but that does not imply that the Quran originated in Turkey. Same is the case with the Cairo Codex. Just because it is located in Cairo does not mean it originated there. I could give additional examples. ..............


    that is a good point dear Mahgraye....

    Quote
    "H.S. 44/32 is located in Turkey, but that does not imply that the Quran originated in Turkey.
    Cairo Codex. Just because it is located in Cairo does not mean Quran originated in Cairo
    finding of Sana Codex in Yemen mosque does not mean Quran originated in Yemen.."

    But there is slight chance with very low probability some parts of Quran may have originated in  Turkey..in Cairo and in Sana or in Samarkand  due to that Samarkand Kufic Quran finding ,  

    Where as we find NOTHING in the sand land's  Mecca & Madina hence possibility of origin  of Quran in the caves of Sand land is Zero..zippo dear Mahgraye

    anyways let me watch again  this Tom Holland's talks

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDQh2nk8ih4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5slk97ss2Q
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2449 - July 07, 2018, 09:45 PM
    Dear Altara - Do you know who Prof. Gadban (Lille) is?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2450 - July 07, 2018, 10:03 PM
    Quote
    Everyone agrees that the Sanaa palimpsest is a seventh century manuscript


    I'm not. We have no real evidence of that. Déroche is a great scholar, but as we do not have real means to determine chronology of the palaeography, or just chronology, it is only conjectures.
    For me,  the Sanaa palimpsest attests that there was multiple codexes circulating,in the same period of time. Because I see no reason that the one which will be modified by Hajjaj b. Yusuf did not existed at the time of the Sanaa palimpsest,  They are different codexes.
    That is why conjectures without sourced validation cannot be foundation to build any argumentation from them. This C14 issue should be set aside because we know nothing scientifically real. It could be an indication but not a foundation of a much larger landscape, since the C14 dating can be totally inexact. C14 dating is used and efficient in Prehistory, It cannot bring to Quranic studies what we ask it.

    Quote
    H.S. 44/32 is located in Turkey, but that does not imply that the Quran originated in Turkey. Same is the case with the Cairo Codex. Just because it is located in Cairo does not mean it originated there. I could give additional examples.


    Of course.
    Quote
    Not sure how this ties into our discussion of the Quran's final redaction and whether that redaction occurred and Uthman (mid-seventh century hypothesis) or Abd al-Malik (mid-Umayyad hypothesis). Both alternatives are possible, but I opted for the former and gave the reasons as to why, relying primarily on the manuscript evidence (there are others reasons as well).


    Unfortunately, the only Arab chiefs we know who have existed  between 630 and 700 are Muawiya, Zubayr, and  Abd al-Malik. The others have no sources. For me, Caliph Utman, Umar,Abu Bakr et al. have never existed as they've been portrayed by the Muslim narrative (as Companions of a "prophet" in Mecca/Medina/Zem Zem/ Kaba). Therefore we only know two codexes : Abd al-Malik one (which can be old indeed but modified by Hajjaj therefore we do not have the original) and  the Sanaa palimpsest.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2451 - July 07, 2018, 10:04 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 07, 2018, 09:45 PM
    Dear Altara - Do you know who Prof. Gadban (Lille) is?


    Nope.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2452 - July 07, 2018, 10:07 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 07, 2018, 08:02 PM
    dates the palimpsest to the last half of the 1st/7th century CE

    How the hell are "they" (who are they?) oblivious of seven hundred years of such a recent manuscript?
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 07, 2018, 08:02 PM
    that is, between 650 and 685 CE

    Wait, what? How did you go from seven centuries to 25 years?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2453 - July 07, 2018, 11:02 PM
    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1015683448743383042
    Quote
    A recurring criticism on the work on the history of Arabic done by @Safaitic and me is that we rely too much on Classical Arabic, and ignore the modern dialects.

    We both have done historical works on the dialects, and they are essential for the history of Proto-Arabic. A thread:


    Edit: thread continues here: https://mobile.twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1015683488320761856
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2454 - July 08, 2018, 12:41 AM
    Quod Sum Eris - Did not understand your questions. Please rephrase them in a coherent matter (with all due respect).

    Altara - One of my earlier comments addresses some of your objections. BNF Arabe 328 clearly speaks against a mid-Umayyad codification under ʿAbd al-Malik. Not only does the Codex predate the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ḥajjāj’s activities, it is also Uthmanic! It is has the same consonantal skeleton and contents as the 1923 Cairo edition. Even the Sanaa palimpsest speaks against an mid-Umayyad dating as well. That is the conclusion many scholars drew. We now know, thanks to the Sanaa palimpsest, that there actually were Companion codices. Regarding ʿUthmān, the manuscript evidence manuscript evidence speaks in favor of his historicity IMO. ʿAbd al-Malik's only contribution to the Quran was that he transformed the scriptio defectiva into a scriptio plena.


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2455 - July 08, 2018, 12:50 AM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 07, 2018, 08:02 PM
    dates the palimpsest to the last half of the 1st/7th century CE—that is, between 650 and 685 CE


    Are you viewing the 7th century as the first century? Seems so with that sentence.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2456 - July 08, 2018, 12:51 AM
    Yes. 7th century AD is the first century AH.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2457 - July 08, 2018, 01:01 AM
    I thought that was what you meant, but just wanted to make sure. Thanks for clarifying. Smiley
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2458 - July 08, 2018, 01:23 AM
    No problem.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2459 - July 08, 2018, 04:36 AM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 08, 2018, 12:51 AM
    Yes. 7th century AD is the first century AH.

    when there was no proof of "H".,  the starting time scale of Islam "AH" is meaningless..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Previous page 1 ... 80 81 8283 84 ... 369 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »