Transmission Of The Qur'anic Revelation

[laian]

Assalamu alaikum everyone,


Anya I don't think the tone of the post should matter, because actually she did put a link to the source of her information. If anyone puts a link to a source, I think we as muslims are obligate to at least check if the source is valid, so that we can then explain why it is invalid, or if it is valid to go forward with the discussion. If she has a bad tone and no indication of a source, then sure it can be assumed that maybe she is making stuff up, or she "heard it" from somewhere. But if there is an accessible source, we should check it first.


Ronni, Umm Z basically posted the entire text of the link you gave us, and the same link that I replied to in the other thread. Ronni was saying that there seems to be evidence of different "versions" of Qur'an.... not different translations, but different actual versions, thus supporting the view that maybe Qur'an is no different from the Bible.


Of course as Muslims we don't need to be convinced this is not true. But for Ronni's sake, I think we owe her a clear and objective explanation of what she has found, since on her part she has no reason to believe in the Qur'an being a non-muslim, and I think her question is valid.


In the other thread I replied to what she found about different versions. For those that missed it, I am re-posting my reply here inshaAllah.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bismillah


wow, over 2 pages were added to this thread since I last read it.


Ronni, I just want to say that you are right, no one seems to be acknowledging the fact that you are providing information from Muslim sources.


I will admit that although I would not say I am "new" to Islam, I have certainly not been Muslim long enough to call myself an expert on any topic, let alone the Qur'an which is hard enough for me just to read in Arabic.


But I took a look at the link you provided for the Ulum al Qur'an. The main website containing this page iswhich as far as I can tell is a legitimate Muslim website.


In case everyone missed it, here is the link from Ronni that I looked at


Ok Ronni, from my limited knowledge, here is what I concluded from that link:


1. First it describes the suhuf and mushaf. I can only give the definition this site provides as I do not know on my own. If anyone else here is familiar with these terms and can give a better explanation, please do


the suhuf refers to single sheets or pieces of writing material which contain surahs. On these suhuf, the ayats of the surahs are in the correct order, but the surahs are not put in order, i.e. they are all on separate pieces and not collected.


the mushaf refer to complete collections of the suhuf, which have the surahs in the correct order and bound together as a book or collection of writings. Therefore, the Qur'an as we have it today is a mushaf.


2. Further, the *correct* suhuf were those written in the time of abu bakr, and the *correct* mushaf were those collected in the time of 'uthman.


(From my own understanding, I did not find this information on the site because I didn't look for it, but previously I learned that 'Uthman was given the task of collecting all of the parts of the Qur'an into one complete volume. Therefore, it makes sense that the only correct collection we should follow is that done by 'Uthman. Someone please correct this if I am mistaken )


3. The text goes on to mention some "variations" found, which are attributed to specific people. One of these is described as being the collection of one person, Ibn Mas'ud. The description from this website is as follows:

He wrote a mushaf, in which sudras 1, 113 and 114 were not
included. Ibn al-Nadim [38] however said he had seen a copy of


the Qur'an from Ibn Mas'ud which did not contain al-fatiha


(Sura 1). The arrangement of the suras differed from the


'Uthmanic text.


..... (the list of surah numbers removed to save space)


This list is obviously incomplete. It contains only 106 suras


and not 110, as Ibn Nadim wrote.

Ok, so it appears that Ibn Mas'ud had his own collection of the Qur'an, and other people were aware that it was different from the 'Uthmanic text. So that tells me it was known this collection was not correct, so no one would be following it or accepting it as the correct Qur'an. The website continues to describe the variations:

In Sura al-baqara, which I take as an example, there are a
total of 101 variants. Most of them concern spelling, some also


choice of words (synonyms), use of particles, etc.


Examples:


Pronunciation:


2:70  Ibn Mas'ud reads  al-baqira


      in place of       al-baqara


Spelling:


2:19  He reads          kulla ma


      in place of       kullama


2:68  He reads         sal (seek, beseech)


      in place of      ud'u (beseech)


Assuming that all these are reliable reports, the copy of Ibn


Mas'ud would then have been prepared for his personal use


and written before all 114 suras were revealed.

Ok, again this tells me that nobody would mistake Ibn Mas'ud's collection for the real Qur'an. It was only for his personal use, like maybe he understood the word ud'u better than sal, so he put it for his own ease of reading. Some may consider this a sin, by trying to make a copy of Qur'an with one's own words, but that is a matter between Ibn Mas'ud and Allah. Also, this website specifies that his collection was made before the Qur'an was completely revealed. So this further tells me that no one could mistake his copy for the real, "official" 'Uthmanic text.


The other examples on this website tell me basically the same thing.


As for the issue of pronunciation versus spelling... it is well known that the Qur'an was preserved primarily by memorization, so in order for it to be *written* (spelled) it had to be *spoken* (pronounced) by someone who had it memorized. From my limited knowledge of the Arabic alphabet, it is very easy to mistake an "e" vowel for an "a" vowel if the person speaking it has a certain accent or a certain way to say it. (there is no soft and hard "a" sound as there is in English, both would be the same "a" in Arabic, but some might think a soft "a" sound sounds more like a soft "e" sound... and so on)


So to some extent, pronunciation differences could also be the same as spelling differences. It depends on how people heard the recitation.


But that still doesn't change the fact that it seems obvious to me that nobody was taking "versions" of the Qur'an as the real Qur'an except the 'Uthmanic text, which was the official compilation.


That is my impression from the information on that website, Ronni.


Also, in every different translation of Qur'an, the original 'Uthmanic text is right along next to the translation, and *all* copies of the Qur'an have the *same* arabic text, the <b>original</b>


No one, not even you, Ronni, can deny that the same cannot be said of the Bible. I have never seen or heard of a Bible that has the <b>original</b> text right next to the translation. So with the Qur'an, any variation in *translation* can be easily resolved by looking at the arabic.


It would be nice if someone who has more knowledge than me would look at Ronni's links and comment on them. But for my part, I did my best, and I hope that helps you Ronni with understanding at least one Muslim's view of the information you posted.