Brian Ulrich points out an article in the Lebanon Daily Star about production of a critical edition of the Quran based on the manuscripts found in a Sanaa mosque in Yemen.
A professor of literature and human science at Sousse University in Tunis, Abdeljelil heads a team of scholars compiling a critical edition of the Koran. The book will publish a number of alternative readings found in a collection of Koranic mashaf (mas-Haf, or manuscripts) —- some dating from the first Islamic century —- that had been stockpiled in the Grand Mosque in Sanaa and uncovered three decades ago.
The first tentative conclusions published by researchers with access to the Yemeni mashaf reveal that in several cases the organization of the text is different —- the suras (chapters) sometimes in a different order —- and that there are differences in the text itself. Because published findings are few, though, it is still impossible to say how wide is the divergence from the authoritative text.
Abdeljelil speculates that, were his small team bolstered with more scholars, the edition could be published in as soon as 10 years. He is cautiously enthusiastic about the project. He has good reason to be cautious.
I heard about these Yemeni manuscripts first in an article in the Atlantic Monthly. This article created a bit of controversy in Muslim circles.
This is a subject I am very much interested in but as I have mentioned before, most of the work in this area has been by extremists, who either want to refute Islam or Muslims who want to defend orthodoxy against orientalists. I would really like to see Muslims take on these projects with scholarship and impartiality. That is why I am excited to hear about the Tunisian scholars work.
Brian sent me an email about this. Like you, I tend to be skeptical of the motives of a lot of people involved in this type of analysis.
The examples I’ve seen often seem to look at a single verse or passage in isolation rather than considering it in the context of other verses on the same topic and seeing if the new interpretation makes sense in the larger context.
Also, there has been a very wide range of analysis and commentary made over the centuries, not all of which is well-known. I would like to see Muslims exploring these interpretations before assuming that a brand-new interpretation is needed.
Critical Edition
I found this post by Zack Ajmal of Procrastination of interest. Zack quotes a Lebanon Daily Star article on efforts to research the early history of the Qur’an, and produce a critical edition on the basis of what appears to…
I think there is no harm in doing a lot of textual analysis and especially in light of old manuscripts which have been discovered. In fact, we’ll learn a lot. You are however right that there has been work done by a number of scholars in the early centuries of Islam and it would be good to read up on that and follow up on it.
I do think that a scholarly analysis has been rarely applied to the Quran in recent centuries. Another thing I would really like to see is someone taking as impartial an approach as possible on this. Most modern Muslims and even scholars have good arguments if you believe but not for an “agnostic” (for lack of a better word). Plus the taboos against lots of stuff have really grown and threats and fatwas are handed out without thought or reason.
What I want to know is how far the variants agree with those in the “codex” (i.e. textual tradition) ascribed to ibn Mas’ud.
Arthur Jeffrey pointed out a number of these, of which I find two of interest: a 47:15 with the plus “khalidina fiha abadan” (as per sura 4); and an entirely different 3:39, which replaced the reference to Zachariah standing in Mary’s doorway with an appearance of the Archangel Gabriel (as per Luke and maybe sura 19).
If you go to link, you will find that they do not print a first-century copy of sura 47; and their sura 3 extends from 3:45-55. I suspect some selectivity is going on here.
David: I need to look this stuff up before I can intelligently discuss it with you. If you know of books, articles or webistes, please let me know.
I am a little swamped with work nowadays, so I’ll come back to your comment later.
married to grapes, and other strange fruit of Quranic analysis
Newsweek has an article out called Challenging the Quran. The tone of the article leaves much to be desired, such…
dear Imam,
Please i want to learn more about Islam so I want a Quran with a translition and some books to learn more about Islam so please help me to learn more about Islam
Abass: I am not an Imam.
just one link would be enough to refute this stupid ‘texual inconsistency’ crap
Buy that book, read it and it will all be clear as to how Orientals are just trying so hard to deny its authenticity.
I have been reading on the sanaa manuscripts for a few months as I was interested to learn about them after hearing from my Christian friends about them.
Gerhard Puin wrote a letter shortly after the publication of the Atlantin Monthly article to the President of antiquity of Yemen. Puin denies all the claims made within the Atlantic Monthly article and said that the Quran in the sanaa manuscripts is the same as the one in our possession today. The differences being different spelling conventions…for instance, the way “alif” is written. Moreover, these differing spelling conventions are not unique to the sanaa manuscripts.
Second, the different surah order. There is apparently one fragment in the sanaa manuscripts in which we come across a different surah placement. I think some individuals, mainly Christian polemicists, have made a lot of noise on this matter without knowing the basics.
To explain briefly, Muslims, I am told, can recite the surahs of the Quran in any order. You can start from any point and stop at any point. There is no mechanical following of the surah order. Similarly, you can transcribe surahs in any order you desire. This is an old practise among the Muslims, so they are quite confused and perplexed when they come across some westerner talking cheerfully about the different surah order in one of the fragment. The Muslim goes: huh, so?
A Muslim friend of mine showed me a small copy of selected surahs of the Quran, some hundred or ninty pages. The surahs and verses were placed in a different order when I compared it to a complete translation of the Quran. This is a normal practise among Muslims.
But, if you desire to produce a complete copy of the Quran, containing all the 114 or 113 surahs, then you have to follow the Uthmanian order, since that order was established by people who learnt from Muhammed. However, you can recite the surahs in any order, place them on a paper in any order, place verses in any order, and even, for scholarly purposes, produce Qurans in different surah orders. For example, I have read somewhere Muslim scholars of old producing copies of the Quran in the chronological order of “revelation”.
Therefore, differing surah order is not looked upon as a “problem” by Muslims and they do not find it “shocking”. I think people who do not know much about Muslim beleifs and practises are primarily the ones who make a lot of noise over these issues and fool themselves into thinking that they have finally uncovered something to “refute” the Quran and shatter Muslim beliefs.
Regarding variant readings, I was surprised to learn from my Muslim friends that Muslims still recite and read the Quran in variant readings. These are know as “qirat”. “variant reading”, to begin with, is the wrong term. The correct term is “multiple readings” – which are all deemed authoritative if they meet some conditions. basically, if a reading is shown to be preserved in a manuscript, its transmission is unbroken to Muhammed, then it is accepted as the Quran and added to the list of existing multiple readings, or qirats. So if scholars locate any reading in the sanaa manuscripts, which are shown to be authentic, then they will be added to the existing list of readings by the Muslims.
Another thing which I have learnt is that the sanaa manuscripts, do not, in fact, reveal any different or new readings. The only variance we find within them is the differing orthographical style, or spelling convention of some letters, and different surah order in on fragment. Nothing more than this as far as I can tell.
Also, if we look at Muslim scholarship, it is surprising to learn how critical it really is. A Muslim scholar called al-Nadim (I think I have the name incorrect), produced a book, called the “Fihrist” in which he listed the variations between certain manuscripts of the Quran in his time. No death threats were issued against him. Similarly, later and earlier Muslim scholars frequently sought out various manuscripts, compared them, and noted the differences in numerous scholarly books. This is not something new to Muslims. So, it is entirely false and misleading to suggest that Muslims, who are basically idiots who know nothing and get scared too quick, did no textual criticism and denied variant, or multiple readings. These are the types of topics openly and freely discussed among Muslims for centuries and centuries. It is not a “controversial” subject in Islamic studies.
Finally, there is an important and crucial difference between the transmission of the Quran and the New Testament. New testament has been transmitted mainly through manuscripts. Scribes make copies of the New Testament, make more copies, and copies of copies, hence, in the process making a variant of errors which eventually multiply as more copies continue to be propagated. Therefore, a writing transmitted only textually can get easily corrupted.
The Quran, on the other hand, has been transmitted oraly as well as in written form. It has always had a parallel oral and written transmission. The benefits of this procedure are obvious – the written transmission keeps a check on the oral transmission and the oral transmission keeps a check on the written transmission. This allows for static transmission. As a result, scribal errors do not propagate as manuscripts are recopied since they are identified and isolated as a result of the parallel oral transmission. Similarly, the oral transmission cannot diverge since there exists a parallel written transmission. The oral transmission is not just a mere telling and retelling of stories, it is a verbatim memorisation of the text.
So I am not presently convinced with the arguments of the polemicists against the textual integrity of the Quran. I am not a Muslim, but I am planning on becoming one someday, I am not certain. While I am not convinced yet that the Quran is the word of God, I do accept it as the word of Muhammed. There would be no reason for me to deny its textual integrity even if I was an athiest.
Thanks
Johnny.
Also, about Arthur Jeffery, one thing to remember is that the variant readings which he produces are not derived from manuscripts. Basicaly, he says that so and so read this. Where is the evidence? Therefore, he presents gossip.
It is also interesting to note the he himself castes doubt over the authenticity of his readings. But decides to conviniently include the since they suit his presuppositions.
Moreover, Jeffery concedes that the so-called codex of Ibn Masud and others (“so called” because there are no codics) display the same text type as the present Quran and do not display any divergences which would lead to a dramatic revision or alteration of the Quran. I think you have quotes of his book on the islamic-awareness website.
Quran and Textual Analysis
Via Ideofact, I see that Tacitus has linked to an article in Newsweek about Christoph Luxenberg (a pseudonym) who claims that some of the words in the Quran should be considered to be in Syriac rather than Arabic. In a…
Have you heard about Luxenberg, a scholar who suspects Quranic text was misunderstood since the beginning, for it was written in a mixed arabic/aramaic language … ??
Pharao: Yes I have even posted about Luxenberg. But he hasn’t published anything in English.
i love reading quran.
Quran is miracle of miracle.
“The Quran, on the other hand, has been transmitted oraly as well as in written form. It has always had a parallel oral and written transmission.” johnny
I am not sure that you know about the TEN readings of the quraan all of which are agreed upon by all moslems , I will refer you to a website , unfortunately its in arabic , which explains the different readings of quraan in writing and in reciting, the point is that Yes there is a controversy in the quraanic text that come from each specific region, and that its is to some extent different from the one that we have.
the website,,,,,,,, http://audio.islamweb.net/audio/index.php?page=rewayat
Thank you for your comments , it means a lot to me, feeling that I磎 not alone on this Earth thinking this way 🙂
@yonadam
Well, sadly, what you’re referring to as ten readings of the Qura’n are ten reciters of the Qura’n. Just wanted to make that clear.
@Johnny
salamalaikum
i agree with you in all the things u wrote here but Different order of verses doesnt make any sense and i havnt seen such thing because in some verses if u displace their order they doesnt make sence because some of them are releated to each other. and i havnt seen or heard any one doing this,
oh yes and one more thing i dont agree with u in last lines lol because i believe its a word of God (just wanna mention this no comments on it)
yeh thats it changing the verses order is confusing and doesnt make any sense
cheers
salamalaikum,
Muhammad Sheraz Mirza
My initial reaction to the “seemingly aberrant” verses of these mashaaf is that enemies of Islam will particularly focus on them and try to refute the authenticiy of the Holy Quran.
Most of the Muslims already know that there were some false copies of Quranic Parchments in circulation at that time. There were many Jews and Christians who had converted to Islam with the intent of destroying it from within. Even Holy Quran mentions them. It is these versions of the Quran that were burnt. Luckily for Muslims, Quran was not only written down but memorized by all. So Uthman had a huge number of Hafizoon (Quran memorizer) to check the accuracy of the verses against.
I warn Muslims that if the “subscript inferior” refers to some Christian concept (i.e. Zakaria in Mary’s room instead of Archangel Gabriel) then they should know that it is written by any Muslims and should know the intent of the original writer. Also that particular verse can be verified against other verses of the Quran. If other verses speak clearly against Trinity then any verse found in Quran which supports trinity has to be of a foreign origin.