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

German nationalist party ...
Today at 10:31 AM
New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM
Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM
Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 1560588 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 271 272 273274 275 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8160 - October 29, 2019, 10:34 PM
    Quote
    These palaeographical styles can given an indication of the age of a manuscript.

    Not necessarily.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8161 - October 29, 2019, 10:39 PM
    Quote from: Altara on October 29, 2019, 10:34 PM
    Not necessarily.



    Where do you see problems with this?
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8162 - October 30, 2019, 01:43 AM
    From the moment where one have none exact date of a series of the earliest manuscripts it seems difficult to establish a chronology between them by the palaeography.Palaeography has been invented for a specific field : Western Middle Ages (600-1400) manuscripts where dates were often given by the texts itself or easily deductible with a small margin of error. One knows rather well who was involved in this and where were written manuscripts in those times. I know it because I was trained in it.
    One wants to apply this field to the earliest Quranic manuscripts and, with it, determining a chronology in a period of 60 years (640-700) where there is no normative orthography and no locatable place of production (from Egypt to Iraq). It seems (to me) rather improbable that we can determine a chronology  of a series of the earliest Quranic manuscripts in these conditions.
    All one can do is to describe different styles without being able to connect them to a chronology which will serve to the history of the emergence of the Quran. An inner chronology why not, as there is different styles, but this does not mean that these ones indicate different times which can be chronologized.  It can also just indicates places of the production of the text and nothing else. This method remains highly conjectural as Radiocarbon dating is.Until we have a chance to get a scientific way to for dating ink, this method remains conjectures.


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8163 - October 30, 2019, 12:18 PM
    MVP thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1189083944479809537
    Quote
    I find this view, while popularly expressed today, insultingly dismissive of the manuscript production. The Quran was faithfully copied from 650 up until about the 1200s with extreme reverence of getting every single letter right. This clearly mattered to these early muslims.

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8164 - October 30, 2019, 12:22 PM
    MVP thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1189468870823817216
    Quote
    When the Quran was first standardized it was written in an ambiguous script that in many places allowed for a significant amount of variation in its language, and how it should be recited. This lead to a proliferation of so called readings, or reading traditions (qirāʾāt).

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8165 - October 30, 2019, 12:25 PM
    No oral tradition as affirmed by the narrative.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8166 - October 30, 2019, 12:29 PM
    MVP thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1189209659338563584
    Quote
    I would argue for the opposite! The less literate you are, the more you needs dots to be able to read.

    Also, Nabataean Arabic had no dots at all. As far as we know so far dots are a Hijazi innovation, one of the many clear attempts at script reform.

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8167 - October 30, 2019, 03:50 PM
    MVP thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1189569761648238592
    Quote
    Earlier I mentioned that all but one manuscript stem from a single archetype. This archetype is likely to have been Uthman's recension of the standard text. So what is this one exception? That is the lower text of DAM 01-27.1 that was washed off and replaced by the Uthmanic text.

    This lower text deviates from the standard text in chapter order and many small differences in wording. The differences are so great that it is unlikely to be a really corrupt descendant of the Uthmanic text type, but instead is a parallel descendant of the original Ur-Quran.

    Despite major variants, between the text of the Uthmanic text type, and the text of the Sanaa Palimpsest, these differences should not be overstated. While the wording may be different, the main thrust of the meaning tends to be fairly similar.

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8168 - October 30, 2019, 05:34 PM
    Quote
    Earlier I mentioned that all but one manuscript stem from a single archetype. This archetype is likely to have been Uthman's recension of the standard text. So what is this one exception? That is the lower text of DAM 01-27.1 that was washed off and replaced by the Uthmanic text.


    Well...

    Quote
    This lower text deviates from the standard text in chapter order and many small differences in wording. The differences are so great


    1/small differences
    2/differences are so great
    I miss something here... (yawn....)
    Quote
    The differences are so great that it is unlikely to be a really corrupt descendant of the Uthmanic text type, but instead is a parallel descendant of the original Ur-Quran.


    There would be an Ur-Quran where DAM 01-27.1 and Uthmanic would be the parallel descendants.Why not. I have another proposition : DAM 01-27.1 was copied from a poorly decayed Uthmanic manuscript, maybe in papyri  where words were lacking,(therefore completed by scribes with the context).  Decayed Uthmanic manuscript whose the order was not known by the scribes (no oral tradition, etc) as nobody knew it because there was no Mecca/Kaba framework.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8169 - October 30, 2019, 06:08 PM
    Quote from: Altara on October 30, 2019, 05:34 PM
    a poorly decayed Uthmanic manuscript, maybe in papyri


    Are you suggesting a much earlier date for the Uthmanic manuscript?
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8170 - October 30, 2019, 06:23 PM
    Yes.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8171 - October 30, 2019, 06:45 PM
    6th century?
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8172 - October 30, 2019, 07:14 PM
    Mid 6- early 7th c.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8173 - October 30, 2019, 08:44 PM
    Tweeting Historians@Tweetistorian



    https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1189569763808366597
    Quote
    This lower text deviates from the standard text in chapter order and many small differences in wording. The differences are NOT so great that it is unlikely to be a really corrupt descendant of the Uthmanic text type, but instead is a parallel descendant of the original Ur-Quran.

     I think that guy is missing that word NOT  in his/her tweet .,  and that missing word makes huge difference to what that tweet is trying to say.,   
     
    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 #8174 - October 30, 2019, 09:19 PM
    Quote from: zeca on October 30, 2019, 06:08 PM
    Are you suggesting a much earlier date for the Uthmanic manuscript?

    So how did that name come from for that Uthmanic Quran manuscript ?? who added that word "Uthmanic"?   who was Uthman?   .  well for that we need to read that childhood story.. So let me read that story to University Professors...
     
    Quote
    Uthman ibn Affan


    `Uthman ibn `Affan (c. 579 – 17 July 656) was one of the companions of Islamic prophet, Muhammad. He played a major role in early Islamic history as the third Caliph.  `Uthman was born into the Umayyad clan of Mecca, a powerful family of the Quraish tribe. He was a companion of Muhammad who assumed the role of leader (caliph) of the Muslim Empire at the age of 70 following Umar ibn al-Khattab. Under his leadership, the empire expanded into Fars in 650 (present-day Iran), some areas of Khorasan (present-day Afghanistan)in 651 and the conquest of Armenia was begun in the 640’s.

    `Uthman was born in Ta’if, which is situated on a hill, and the presumption is that he was born during the summer months, since wealthy Meccans usually spent the hot summers in the cooler climate of Ta’if. He was born into the wealthy Umayyad (Banu Umayya) clan of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, seven years after Muhammad. `Uthman's father, Affan, died young while travelling abroad but left a large inheritance to `Uthman. `Uthman followed the same profession as his father, and his business flourished, making him one of the richest men among the Qurayshi tribe.

    `Uthman was an early convert to Islam and is said to have spent a great amount of his wealth on charity. On returning from a business trip to Syria in 611, `Uthman found out that Muhammad had declared his mission. After a discussion with his friend Abu Bakr `Uthman decided to convert to Islam, and Abu Bakr took him to Muhammad to whom he declared his faith. `Uthman thus became the fourth male to convert to Islam, after Ali, Zayd and Abu Bakr. His conversion to Islam angered his clan, the Banu Ummayyah, who strongly opposed Muhammad's teachings.[4] The only two people who supported `Uthman's decision were Saadi, one of his maternal aunts, and Umm Kulthum, who was his stepsister and who had also converted to Islam. Because of his conversion to Islam, `Uthman's wives deserted him, and he subsequently divorced them. Muhammad then asked `Uthman to marry his daughter Ruqayyah bint Muhammad.


    So that is the story I often heard?? was it real?? why not?? .. afterall we have printed Manuscript on his name .. it is called Uthmanic Quran manuscript  ., manuscript  ?? why manuscript  ??  IT IS THE QURAN THAT WE HAVE .. the book.. so let me delete that word manuscript   
    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 #8175 - October 30, 2019, 10:14 PM
    Quote
    So how did that name come from for that Uthmanic Quran manuscript ?? who added that word "Uthmanic"?

    Scholars.

    Quote
    who was Uthman?   .


    One have no sources outside the narrative.
    Quote
    So that is the story I often heard??


    Yes, the narrative.

    Quote
    was it real??

     

    For me not. All the protagonists of this period have been dressed (9th c. narrative) as Muslims "Companion of the Prophet".
    Were those ones were"Companion of the Prophet"? I think not.

    Quote
    why not?? .. afterall we have printed Manuscript on his name ..

    Because it is believed that Muslims recounts historical facts.


    Quote
    it is called Uthmanic Quran manuscript  ., manuscript  ?? why manuscript  ??


    Because one talks about manuscripts/codex (Petropolitanus, Sanaa, Topkapi, etc); book is a modern printed stuff, manuscripts are written with the hand (manus=hand).




     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8176 - October 31, 2019, 10:03 AM
    Quote from: Altara on October 30, 2019, 10:14 PM
    Scholars.

    One have no sources outside the narrative.
    Yes, the narrative.
     

    For me not. All the protagonists of this period have been dressed (9th c. narrative) as Muslims "Companion of the Prophet".
    Were those ones were"Companion of the Prophet"? I think not.
    Because it is believed that Muslims recounts historical facts.


    Because one talks about manuscripts/codex (Petropolitanus, Sanaa, Topkapi, etc); book is a modern printed stuff, manuscripts are written with the hand (manus=hand).


    they are point by point wonderful answers dear Altara.,  those answers I will use here and there in the personal discussions and debates((BUT  NEVER WILL BE USED IN WRITING ON ANY BLOG/ FORUM IN ANY FORM)

    but questions on first one word answer "Scholars." .....  (that   Samarkand Kufic Quran(which apparently comes from present Iraq and and stationed  in   Hast Imam library, in Tashkent, Uzbekistan)) ...

    1) Who are these scholars ? and who was the first one that coined the word Uthmanic manuscript?

    2)  Why did he/she/they(the scholars) choose that third Rashidun Caliph /Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman ibn Affan  who allegedly lived as caliph  around   644–656 ? why not some one else?  as that Quran comes some times 8th century

    Quote
    ............Based on orthographic and palaeographic studies, the manuscript probably dates from the 8th or 9th century.  Radio-carbon dating showed a 95.4% probability of a date between 775 and 995.  However, one of the folios from another manuscript (held in the Religious Administration of Muslims in Tashkent) was dated to between 595 and 855 A.D. with a likelihood of 95%..........


    3) Are they (( who consider that Samarkand Kufic Quran comes from Uthman)) Muslim scholars of 9th century? or fellows who wrote stories on Quran origins in last two centuries  19th/20th  from Muslim as well as non muslim Ph. D. scholars??

    I am under the impression that you said once.. THAT THERE ARE NO REAL SCHOLARS ON THE ORIGINS OF QURAN....   I guess you gave bit of credit to that ooold original ma John Wansbrough  and NOTHING  not even 1% to his student Patricia Crone...    Cheesy  rest of the scholars on your scale are NOT scholars ..
    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 #8177 - October 31, 2019, 11:47 AM
    Quote
    1) Who are these scholars ? and who was the first one that coined the word Uthmanic manuscript?

    (Maybe)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_N%C3%B6ldeke

    An all scholars have followed, as the narrative says that it is Utman who have collected "officially" the Quran. That is why one talks of the Utmanic rasm.
    Quote
    Why did he/she/they(the scholars) choose that third Rashidun Caliph /Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman ibn Affan  who allegedly lived as caliph  around   644–656 ? why not some one else?  as that Quran comes some times 8th century

    The narrative says that it is Utman who have collected "officially" the Quran and destroyed all the other ones. It is the consensus for the Muslim scholars.
    Western scholars have followed the narrative, therefore the Muslim scholars. They did not doubt of nothing, thinking that Muslim were recounting an historical story (Mecca/Kaba/Zem Zem) and the rest of the story.

    Quote
    Based on orthographic and palaeographic studies, the manuscript probably dates from the 8th or 9th century.  Radio-carbon dating showed a 95.4% probability of a date between 775 and 995.  However, one of the folios from another manuscript (held in the Religious Administration of Muslims in Tashkent) was dated to between 595 and 855 A.D. with a likelihood of 95%..........


    Radiocarbon dating is not reliable for artefacts which stretch for a short period of time. It is used for prehistorical stuff.
    Quote
    3) Are they (( who consider that Samarkand Kufic Quran comes from Uthman)) Muslim scholars of 9th century?

    Muslim scholars of 9th century thought that all Quran they had were copied  from the Uthman collection.
    Quote
    or fellows who wrote stories on Quran origins in last two centuries  19th/20th  from Muslim as well as non muslim Ph. D. scholars??

    19th/20th/21th non muslim Ph. D. scholars follow the narrative (that all Quran they have were copied  from the Uthman collection.).
    Quote
    I am under the impression that you said once.. THAT THERE ARE NO REAL SCHOLARS ON THE ORIGINS OF QURAN....


    Yes.
    Quote
    I guess you gave bit of credit to that ooold original ma John Wansbrough  and NOTHING  not even 1% to his student Patricia Crone.

    Wansbrough did not have all the scientific points about manuscripts which, if he had had it, he would not have  stretch the period of time of Quran composition until the 9th c. This would have change his theory.
    Dye, Sinai, etc. retake the Wansbrough Quran theory of layers composition but in a much more very short of time (630-50/60)
    For Crone, see my previous posts.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8178 - October 31, 2019, 11:49 AM
    MVP thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1189839460357279745
    Quote
    Early Qurans lacked a means to write vowels. As vowels are the main marker of differences in reading traditions, specific traditions could not be read from the text before then. Somewhere, in the 8th c., scribes start adding coloured dots that mark vowels, revealing the reading

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8179 - October 31, 2019, 05:18 PM
    MVP thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1189914287868981248
    Quote
    In a previous thread I discussed how Ibn Mujāhid was the person who established the canon of the seven readers. While this is true, it's not the case that the readings take on the final form in his description in the way that we know them today. Another century would go by.

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8180 - October 31, 2019, 05:20 PM
    MVP starts to fear in Twitter about qiraat :

    Quote
    Some amount of logical interpretation of the rasm was involved.


    Only logical work/interpretation on  the rasm suffice.

    Quote
    I don't claim there was no oral tradition before the rasm.

    But the consequences of what you scholarly wrote is to say that there was no need of an oral tradition to get the qiraat.
    From there, one can say that the qiraat are the logical result of guesswork of those who have completed the rasm.
    Muslims around him have felt the taste of blood ; response from MVP:
    Quote
    I don't claim there was no oral tradition before the rasm.

    I do not blame him. I just remark that it is not possible to work about the Quran being an academic.
    Who will have the guts to ask on Twitter to MVP  if oral tradition is necessary to get the qiraat?
    He's gonna be in a lot of trouble.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8181 - October 31, 2019, 07:46 PM
    MVP thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1189991590443601920
    Quote
    Ibn Mujāhid canonised the seven readings, and these canonical readings show up in manuscripts that predate his canonisation. But logically before canonisation there must have been much more variation, so do we find evidence for pre-canonical readings in these manuscripts? Yes!

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8182 - November 01, 2019, 10:32 AM
    Quote from: Altara on October 31, 2019, 11:47 AM
    (Maybe)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_N%C3%B6ldeke

    my goodness he was a great guy.. now a days with all computers and literature in hand it take years to write a decent publication  and in his long life he published tremendous amount of work  that too around 1870 ..1920...

    thanks for that link of dedicated scholar ..

    Quote
    An all scholars have followed, as the narrative says that it is Utman who have collected "officially" the Quran. That is why one talks of the Utmanic rasm.The narrative says that it is Utman who have collected "officially" the Quran and destroyed all the other ones. It is the consensus for the Muslim scholars.
    Western scholars have followed the narrative, therefore the Muslim scholars. They did not doubt of nothing, thinking that Muslim were recounting an historical story (Mecca/Kaba/Zem Zem) and the rest of the story.


    Quote
    Radiocarbon dating is not reliable for artefacts which stretch for a short period of time. It is used for prehistorical stuff.


    you have a point there..  and I am looking in to the literature  of radiocarbon dating of  materials just from the last 3000 or 4000 years  focusing on religious manuscripts.. or other written materials
     
    Quote
    Muslim scholars of 9th century thought that all Quran they had were copied  from the Uthman collection.19th/20th/21th non muslim Ph. D. scholars follow the narrative (that all Quran they have were copied  from the Uthman collection.).

    You are right on non muslim   scholars.,   These non muslim   scholars or Muslims scholars that have academic Ph.Ds.   with a Ph.D on their head gears do not use their heads and follow Muslim scholars of 9th century as sheep...

    now saying that., Let us discuss bit more on this point of 9th century Muslim scholars

     I wonder whether you could guide me to the work of Muslim scholars of 9th century who thought Quran the present book (NOT MANUSCRIPTS) was  copied  from the Uthman collection

    Quote
    Yes.Wansbrough did not have all the scientific points about manuscripts which, if he had had it, he would not have  stretch the period of time of Quran composition until the 9th c. This would have change his theory.

    I fully agree with that on Wansbrough.. It appears that it is hard to find a fearless guy like him   and their publications  in recent times (after 70s) in this field
    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 #8183 - November 01, 2019, 11:46 AM
    Quote
    I wonder whether you could guide me to the work of Muslim scholars of 9th century who thought Quran the present book (NOT MANUSCRIPTS) was  copied  from the Uthman collection


    ?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8184 - November 01, 2019, 12:41 PM
    MVP thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1190228149705101312
    Quote
    The Arabic script as we know it today did not come out of thin air. It had a long history, and its development is quite clear.
    There seems to be a lot of confusion about its origins both among academics and lay people. So let's look at its centuries long history before Islam!

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8185 - November 01, 2019, 02:20 PM
    Quote from: Altara on November 01, 2019, 11:46 AM
    ?


    Oh by that question mark .,  you mean to say theodor nöldeke work(the wiki link of your post) has the information about the  "Muslim scholars of 9th century who considered that the present  Quran  was  copied  from the Uthman collection "
    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 #8186 - November 01, 2019, 02:28 PM
    Remi Brague and his thought :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9mi_Brague
    Translatable by the YT device :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XETFcwtB-Ug&list=PL876FAC15E5146458&index=43
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8187 - November 01, 2019, 02:31 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on November 01, 2019, 02:20 PM
    Oh by that question mark .,  you mean to say theodor nöldeke work(the wiki link of your post) has the information about the  "Muslim scholars of 9th century who considered that the present  Quran  was  copied  from the Uthman collection "


    I'm sorry Yeez, I do not understand what is the question here.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #8188 - November 01, 2019, 02:35 PM
    Quote from: Altara on November 01, 2019, 02:31 PM
    I'm sorry Yeez, I do not understand what is the question here.

    ooops..

    The question is  .... "Who are 9th century Muslim scholars that said .. The present Quran comes from the collection of scripts/sayings/whatever  from rashidun caliph Uthman"??...

    Quote from: Altara on October 31, 2019, 11:47 AM
      Muslim scholars of 9th century thought  that all Quran they had were copied  from the Uthman collection.


    I wonder there whether  you are pointing at Hadith ?
    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 #8189 - November 01, 2019, 02:51 PM
    Quote
    "Who are 9th century Muslim scholars that said .. The present Quran comes from the collection of scripts/sayings


    All. It is the accepted account. It is evident for them, they consider the frame Mecca/Kaba/Uthman as what has happened.They do not even say: The present Quran comes from the collection of rashidun caliph Uthman.Because it is evident.
  • Previous page 1 ... 271 272 273274 275 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »