Assalamu Alaykum brothers.
I've recently been going through the claim that Sana manuscripts are versions of the Quran and prove it's been corrupt so on and so forth. I know brother Osama's general opinion is that if Caliph Uthman r.a would have found these manuscripts they would have been burnt, however, I read in
www.islamic-awareness.com that the manuscripts contain, let's say, two scripts, the inferior one (which is the one that has been washed off, y'know the claim and the reason why) and the superior one. Now, a study performed showed us that the inferior script contained the Quran that was brought down by companions, and we know the story, so this could have pretty well included the variations Uthman r.a wanted to get rid off, BUT the superior script or text, which is the one written above the washed off text, is actually an Uthmanic Tradition. Now, if it's an Uthmanic tradition, why do we find variations. We don't, I know that BUT... This.
Greetings to all,
In Toby Lester's article "What is the Koran?", published in the January 1999
issue of The Atlantic Monthly, a German scholar, Dr. Gerd-R. Puin, played a
prominent role, as he is researching on the old Yemeni Qur'an manuscripts. Since
he felt that his position concerning Qur'an scholarship could be misunderstood
from this article (and especially its various erroneous Arabic translations) he
asked me to share with this list his following paper. He himself has no access
to the Internet and its mailing lists.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
__________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Gerd-R. Puin
FR 7.2 Orientalistik
Universitaet des Saarlandes
D-66111 Saarbruecken
January, l999
My position concerning my work on Yemeni Koran fragments:
I have been lucky - and still I am - to study many of the oldest Yemeni Koran
manuscripts written in the most archaic "Hijazi" style. In these I found
variants and peculiarities which are not recorded in the traditional Arabic
books on qira'at (variant readings), or in the books on rasm al-masahif
(orthography of the Koran
) nor in those on the ti'dad al-ayat (counting
[systems] of verses). The Hijazi Korans show more variants than those recorded
as the Seven, Ten or Fourteen Readings, they show more patterns of "counting" -
i.e. definitions of what is to be understood as a verse - than the two dozen
"schools" of counting would accept, finally, the sequence of how the surahs were
arranged in early times, was even more variegated than Ibn Nadim's account on
the sequence of surahs in the Korans of Ubayy or Ibn Mas'ud suggests!
If I had not had access to Yamani Koran fragments preserved in the Dar
al-Makhtutat al-Yamaniyyah, San'a', I could have possibly found similar variants
and peculiarities in Hijazi fragments of the Koran kept outside the Yemen in
many libraries or museums, e.g. in France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, or
Kuwait. A most spectacular (complete??) Hijazi Koran can be admired in the
Islamic Museum of Cairo, only a few meters from the entrance, in a special
vitrine to the right of the main route; this treasure is in Egypt since 1300
years or so, but I know of no investigation, of no publication on its
peculiarities!
There is, on the Muslims' side, no interest in textual research on the Koran
since 900 years! Except from some western semitists who, from time to time,
detect the etymology of one Koranic expression or another, most of the
Arabists feel reluctant to make up their minds on the genesis of the Koran. The
reason for this kind of negligence is quite clear: Both the Muslims and most of
the Arabists conceive any early deviation from the Koranic scripture (as is
represented by the Cairo print edition) for a lapsus calami, a mere scribal
error.
Yet, if "scribal errors" happen to occur with the same words, more often than
twice, in the same manuscript or even in two or three, then it is common
(philological) sense to look out for a rationale! This is my position: taking
recurrent deviations from the (printed) Koran for serious and not for
insufficiencies of the early scribes! The Koran, being the biggest Arabic text
corpus extant from late antiquity, even in its actual printed edition bears
witness of all stages of orthographic reforms through which the text passed down
to us. I feel confident that an insight into the development of Koranic
orthography will at least lead to a different notion of the text in some cases,
and to a better understanding in many many more passages. This will not, I'm
afraid, bring about the breakthrough in the understanding of the Koran, but it
might contribute to show that the Koran has a history, not only in the sense of
asbab al-nuzul ("causes for revelation"). The breakthrough might come along with
the answer upon the question: What is the language of the Koran? Meanwhile, I
stick to the manuscripts.
Dr. Gerd-R. Puin
I found this particular article in a Google Group posted by the Dr. mentioned at the top.
What's bothering me is this "... In these I found
variants and peculiarities which are not recorded in the traditional Arabic
books on qira'at (variant readings), or in the books on rasm al-masahif
(orthography of the Koran) nor in those on the ti'dad al-ayat (counting
[systems] of verses). The Hijazi Korans show more variants than those recorded
as the Seven, Ten or Fourteen Readings, they show more patterns of "counting" -
i.e. definitions of what is to be understood as a verse - than the two dozen
"schools" of counting would accept, finally, the sequence of how the surahs were
arranged in early times, was even more variegated than Ibn Nadim's account on
the sequence of surahs in the Korans of Ubayy or Ibn Mas'ud suggests!...."
How true is this? Did Puin really say these? Is there a refutation.
I know we've dealt with the Sana manuscripts a long time ago, but if these points are indeed present, do they affect the integrity or meaning, respectively teaching of the Qur'an?
As for the inferior/superior text refer to : http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html
I apologize for the strikethroughs, could not get rid of them.
Peace!
