A question for Muslims.

[Dr T]

There is a lot of evidence that raises questions over the dating of the Koran.

Some examples:
Until at least 80 years after the death of Mohammed, Mosques were not built facing Mecca, yet the Koran says that this practice started in Mohammeds life time.

The Koran must be the most Holy object for a Muslim, yet no early copies of the Koran exist. In fact there is no copy early than a couple of hunderd years after the death of Mohammed.

The earliest references to the Arab religion from external sources didn't make any mention of a Holy book.

There are a lot more of these questions over the dating of the Koran. A good site for discussing this can be found at the following link:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/uncomfrt.htm

I have never seen a Muslim response to these questions, and would be interested in a relpy.

[Marcus1962]

I've heard that the earliest Muslim clerics gathered together to determine which copies would be used and completely destroyed the variants.

[Dr T]

Today @ 06:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156801#post156801)
Marcus1962:

I've heard that the earliest Muslim clerics gathered together to determine which copies would be used and completely destroyed the variants.

There is a Muslim tradition that Uthman (one of the early rulers of Islam) destroyed all the variants and standarised the text. This occurring with in living memory of Mohammed (not sure of the dates) so may be within 10 years or so of the death of Mohammed.
But if this was true then won't some of the standardised versions be available from that time? This is the Muslims Holy book afterall.

The article I linked to shows that there are no copies standard or variant that can be dated earlier that 180 - 200 years after the death of Mohammed. There are a couple of old Korans that are frequently claimed to be the one that Uthman was holding when he was murdered by his fellow Muslims, but studies of these have shown that they are different from each other, and written in styles that weren't in use until a long time after Mohammed.

There is no physical reason why a book of that age couldn't be preserved, there are copies of the NT that predate it, written on less reliable material, but these have survived.

This was only one point in the article, another one was that the Arabic inscriptions of the era have Koran like statements, but aren't in the Koran.

Not sure if you are aware a very old copy of the Koran was found in San'aa in the Yeman in the mid 80's, probably oldest in the world, but it differs a lot from the current versions. The advice from a Muslim website was that it should be burnt.

So could be two reasons why there are no old copies of the Koran.

1) Wasn't written down until 200 years or so after the death od Mohammed.
2) All the old copies have been detroyed to hide the evidence of the changes in it.

[Jin-Roh]

Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why? Is it because Zaid's copy was better? If so, how do we know? Did differences in the copies arise so quickly that discrepancies were evident and Uthman recognized the need for a standardized copy lest Islam suffer division? It raises doubt on the Koran's supposed incorruptibility. * (http://www.carm.org/islam/muslim_attacks.htm)

[Marcus1962]

Look at texts of ancient documents from 2000 or more years ago. Almost none still exist that were written at the time of the author and the quantities of these is also farly small. The earliest copies of Virgil date from approx. 300 yrs after he died. Homer's The Iliad has 643 manuscripts. There are 330 mauscripts of Euripides' works. There is one manuscript of "The History of Rome" by Vellius Paterculus; however, it was lost in the 17th century. Compare that with almost 25,000 manuscripts, tracts, and fragments of the New Testament dating to within 30 yrs after the events described. The only copies of Socrates come to us in the form of excerpts from The Five Dialogues by Plato.

There are no official government documents existing from that time frame from the Roman Empire. You would think that there would be some documents but there aren't any. We expect more because of our culture and technology.

[SilverRain]

The Qur'an itself was revealed over 23 years to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and he would in turn recite it to his companions who were professional memorizers. They would memorize each and very verse. In addition to that, the Prophet had commissioned a number of scribes to write the Qur'an down on any suitable object (leaves of trees, bones, parchment, leather, or flat stones, etc.). These records were kept with Hafsah, wife of the Prophet. The entire Qur'an was written during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It was then compiled under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr who ruled for 2 years after the Prophet's death. Then after the conquests of Islam and the expansion of the empire under 'Umar, Caliph 'Uthman recieved word of variant readings in different parts of the non-Arabic speaking empires. This was about 15 years after the death of the Prophet These were variant readings meaning not pronounciating the Arabic words properly and thus recording them incorrectly. In Arabic, it was written without the vowel markings (similar to Hebrew in a manner) and so, these non-Arabic speaking peoples did not have the proper reference. So 'Uthman knowing that this was potentially dangerous, took the copies from Hafsah, gathered the companions of the Prophet who had recited it to ensure that they were checked, and established or "codified" the Qur'anic text with the proper vowel markings. 'Uthman had these Qur'an copied perfectly and sent them to the peoples of those respected empires. This is the same exact text we have today.

There are still in existence the Qur'ans that 'Uthman sent out to these various empires. These are available in many museums across the Muslim world. Also, even before the 'Uthmani Qur'ans, at the library of the Great Mosque in Sanaa, there is a copy of the Qur’an reputed to be in the handwriting of Imam Ali ibn Abu Taleb, Zayd ibn Thabit and Salman Al-Farsi. Written in large unvoweled Kufic script, the Qur’an is in two parts of 150 pages each. This Qur'an dates back to within a decade of the Prophet's death. These men were the companions of the Prophet who memorized the Qur'an in full.

There are many people out there (i.e. Chrisitan Missionaries) trying to decieve Muslims and Non-Muslims alike into believing the Qur'an has been corrupted as the Bible has... but if one reserves himself to education on this topic, it is very clear that the Prophet and the early Caliphs were very careful as to not allow the same mistakes to be made again. Muslims believe the Qur'an is the only text that is promised the Protection of God Almighty from corruption.

[Krusader]

Prove the Bible was corrupted!

[Jude3b]

The Qur'an itself was revealed over 23 years to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and he would in turn recite it to his companions who were professional memorizers. They would memorize each and very verse. In addition to that, the Prophet had commissioned a number of scribes to write the Qur'an down on any suitable object (leaves of trees, bones, parchment, leather, or flat stones, etc.). These records were kept with Hafsah, wife of the Prophet. The entire Qur'an was written during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It was then compiled under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr who ruled for 2 years after the Prophet's death. Then after the conquests of Islam and the expansion of the empire under 'Umar, Caliph 'Uthman recieved word of variant readings in different parts of the non-Arabic speaking empires. This was about 15 years after the death of the Prophet These were variant readings meaning not pronounciating the Arabic words properly and thus recording them incorrectly. In Arabic, it was written without the vowel markings (similar to Hebrew in a manner) and so, these non-Arabic speaking peoples did not have the proper reference. So 'Uthman knowing that this was potentially dangerous, took the copies from Hafsah, gathered the companions of the Prophet who had recited it to ensure that they were checked, and established or "codified" the Qur'anic text with the proper vowel markings. 'Uthman had these Qur'an copied perfectly and sent them to the peoples of those respected empires. This is the same exact text we have today.

There are still in existence the Qur'ans that 'Uthman sent out to these various empires. These are available in many museums across the Muslim world. Also, even before the 'Uthmani Qur'ans, at the library of the Great Mosque in Sanaa, there is a copy of the Qur’an reputed to be in the handwriting of Imam Ali ibn Abu Taleb, Zayd ibn Thabit and Salman Al-Farsi. Written in large unvoweled Kufic script, the Qur’an is in two parts of 150 pages each. This Qur'an dates back to within a decade of the Prophet's death. These men were the companions of the Prophet who memorized the Qur'an in full.

There are many people out there (i.e. Chrisitan Missionaries) trying to decieve Muslims and Non-Muslims alike into believing the Qur'an has been corrupted as the Bible has... but if one reserves himself to education on this topic, it is very clear that the Prophet and the early Caliphs were very careful as to not allow the same mistakes to be made again. Muslims believe the Qur'an is the only text that is promised the Protection of God Almighty from corruption.

And if you are wrong and you have based your life on the Koran, won't you be sorry! Why not read the Bible and tell us what is corrupted in it yourself?

[Timothy Leary]

Look at texts of ancient documents from 2000 or more years ago. Almost none still exist that were written at the time of the author and the quantities of these is also farly small. The earliest copies of Virgil date from approx. 300 yrs after he died. Homer's The Iliad has 643 manuscripts. There are 330 mauscripts of Euripides' works. There is one manuscript of "The History of Rome" by Vellius Paterculus; however, it was lost in the 17th century. Compare that with almost 25,000 manuscripts, tracts, and fragments of the New Testament dating to within 30 yrs after the events described. The only copies of Socrates come to us in the form of excerpts from The Five Dialogues by Plato.

There are no official government documents existing from that time frame from the Roman Empire. You would think that there would be some documents but there aren't any. We expect more because of our culture and technology.

There are no manuscripts of the NT dating from within 30 years of the events that the NT describes.

[Krusader]

There are no manuscripts of the NT dating from within 30 years of the events that the NT describes.
Which means, my friend, that there were individuals still alive who could attest to the authenticity of the writer of the NT narrative. Paul says in one of his epistles that Christ appeared to 500 at one time - and that many still remained alive to verify this fact at the time Paul was writing.

[InChristAlways]

Joel 2:28 " And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on ALL flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. 29 And also on [My] menservants and on [My] maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. HI all. My question to muslims is since they believe in the OT and that Jesus was a great prophet unto like Moses, why do they fail to see God Himself coming to His temple in Malachi 3?Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. Who is the Son in psalm 2 that we are all to "Kiss"? Surely not the messiah the jews are "waiting on" and surely not muhammed!!!! Is not the "Son" to be likened to the Glory of God Himself in human form?
I can understand the jews not believing in Him as they have no idea of what the Spirit is in the OT, but I would hope the muslims would at least know what God meant by sending His begotten Son then later the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. What do the muslims not understand about the Spirit "being poured out on ALL FLESH" as spoken of in Joel? Not just on jews, but ALL. Thanks and God bless.[i]psalm 2:7 "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, 'You [are] My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 Ask of Me, and I will give [You] The nations [for] Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth [for] Your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel.' " 10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all those who put their trust in Him. 1 John 5:20 and we have known that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind, that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ; this one is the true God and the life age-during!

[x-reverend]

www.islamic-awareness.org (http://www.islamic-awareness.org) :teeth:
HI all. My question to muslims is since they believe in the OT and that Jesus was a great prophet unto like Moses, why do they fail to see God Himself coming to His temple in Malachi 3? Who is the Son in psalm 2 that we are all to "Kiss"? Surely not the messiah the jews are "waiting on" and surely not muhammed!!!! Is not the "Son" to be likened to the Glory of God Himself in human form?
I can understand the jews not believing in Him as they have no idea of what the Spirit is in the OT, but I would hope the muslims would at least know what God meant by sending His begotten Son then later the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. What do the muslims not understand about the Spirit "being poured out on ALL FLESH" as spoken of in Joel? Not just on jews, but ALL. Thanks and God bless.

Argument by weblink is not allowed. Also judging by your name EX-reverend I am assuming you are a EX-Theist? Well this area is for theists only. please read the stickies at the beginning of each area before posting

[F.C. Julianus]

Prove the Bible was corrupted!

Sure. Which of the nine different endings for the Gospel of Mark is the correct one?

This area is for theists only. please read the stickies at the beginning of each area before posting

[F.C. Julianus]

There are no manuscripts of the NT dating from within 30 years of the events that the NT describes.

Exactly. I only know of fragment P52, and even the most conservative dates put it 100 years after the fact.
This area is for theists only. please read the stickies at the beginning of each area before posting

[F.C. Julianus]

Which means, my friend, that there were individuals still alive who could attest to the authenticity of the writer of the NT narrative. Paul says in one of his epistles that Christ appeared to 500 at one time - and that many still remained alive to verify this fact at the time Paul was writing.

Right, and in the Qu'ran there is a story about a man who doubted god. So god made a mountain appear before him, and then disappear. It's a MIRACLE! Are you going to worship Allah now?

Just because something is written, does not mean it's true. It's also written that two million Persians under Xerxes invaded Greece, but you'll have a hard time finding any modern historians who believe that figure.


This area is for theists only. please read the stickies at the beginning of each area before posting

[Christian2]

Exactly. I only know of fragment P52, and even the most conservative dates put it 100 years after the fact.

I don't think so. The date of Fragment P52 puts its date somewhere between the years 90-100AD. The dates of the original manuscripts are something like this:

James—A.D. 44–49
Galatians—A.D. 49–50
Matthew—A.D. 50–60
Mark—A.D. 50–60
1 Thessalonians—A.D. 51
2 Thessalonians—A.D. 51–52
1 Corinthians—A.D. 55
2 Corinthians—A.D. 55–56
Romans— A.D. 56
Luke—A.D. 60–61
Ephesians—A.D. 60–62
Philippians—A.D. 60–62
Philemon—A.D. 60–62
Colossians—A.D. 60–62
Acts—A.D. 62
1 Timothy—A.D. 62–64
Titus—A.D. 62–64
1 Peter—A.D. 64–65
2 Timothy—A.D. 66–67
2 Peter—A.D. 67–68
Hebrews—A.D. 67–69
Jude—A.D. 68–70
John—A.D. 80–90
1 John—A.D. 90–95
2 John—A.D. 90–95
3 John—A.D. 90–95
Revelation—A.D. 94–96

Removed this post since it was just in response to Julianus's post above and he was not supposed to be posting in this area and the post was off topic anyway. This is nothing against you Christian2

[Christian2]

SilverRain,

There are many people out there (i.e. Chrisitan Missionaries) trying to decieve Muslims and Non-Muslims alike into believing the Qur'an has been corrupted as the Bible has... but if one reserves himself to education on this topic, it is very clear that the Prophet and the early Caliphs were very careful as to not allow the same mistakes to be made again. Muslims believe the Qur'an is the only text that is promised the Protection of God Almighty from corruption.

This is the history of the Muslim allegation of the "corruption" of the Bible:

It was only with Muslim Ibn-Khazem, who died in Cordoba in 1064, that the charge of falsification of the Bible was born.

In his defense of Islam against Christians, Ibn-Khazem came up against the contradictions between the Qur’an and the Gospels. One obvious example was the Qur’anic text, ‘They slew him not, and they crucified him not’ (Surah 4,156). ‘Since the Qur’an must be true,’ Ibn-Khazem argued, "it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore the present text must have been falsified by the Christians.’ His argument was not based on historical facts, but purely on his own reasoning and on his wish to safeguard the truth of the Qur’an. Once he was on this path, nothing could stop him from pursuing this accusation. In fact, it seemed the easiest way to attack the opponents. ‘If we prove the falsehood of their books, they lose the arguments they take from them’. (And this is exactly what has happened.) This led him eventually to make the cynical statement: ‘The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God left intact as argument against them’.

Many of the great Muslim thinkers have, indeed, accepted the authenticity of the New Testament text. Their testimony means that Christian-Muslim dialogue need not forever be stymied by the allegation introduced by Ibn-Khazem. Two great historians, Al-Mas’udi (died 956) and Ibn-Khaldun (died 1406), held the authenticity of the Gospel text. Four well-known theologians agreed with this: Ali at-Tabari (died 855), Qasim al-Khasani (died 860), ‘Amr al-Ghakhiz (died 869) and, last but not least, the famous Al-Ghazzali (died 1111). Their view is shared by Abu Ali Husain Ibn Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna (died 1037). Bukhari (died 870), who acquired a great name by his collection of early traditions, quoted the Qur’an itself (Sura 3,72.78) to prove that the text of the Bible is not falsified."

The allegation of "corruption" came about because Muslims found that the Qur'an differed greatly with the Old and New Testaments. It was a matter of saying that the Qur'an was incorrect or the Bible was incorrect because they both can't be correct.

Muslims believe the Qur'an is the only text that is promised the Protection of God Almighty from corruption.

That's nice. You make Allah sound like a failure. He couldn't protect the Bible, but he could protect the Qur'an.

The problem is that a Holy Book that has been perfectly protected is no indication of the truth it contains. A couple of thousand years from now we will have perfectly protected Harry Potter books.

The other problem Muslims have is that the Qur'an does not say that the Bible has been corrupted and the manuscripts we have predate Islam by several hundred years. In other words, the Bible that was in existance in the time of Muhammad is the same one we have now. It couldn't have been corrupted after Muhammad because there were too many texts in too many languages in existance for anyone to change anything.

[F.C. Julianus]

I don't think so. The date of Fragment P52 puts its date somewhere between the years 90-100AD. The dates of the original manuscripts are something like this:


With all due respect, that is absurd. 125-170 C.E. is a more scholarly date range. Conservative scholars argue the lower range, while more critical scholars argue the mid to upper range. Are you honestly going to tell us that paleographic dating can be precision accurate to 10 years? That would be a miraculous feat even with a complete manuscript, but with a fragment 2.5 x 3.5 inches it is total nonsense.


Matthew—A.D. 50–60
Mark—A.D. 50–60
Luke—A.D. 60–61
John—A.D. 80–90


You seem very confident. Please provide the data to support the dates you have assigned to the gospels.

This area is for theists only. please read the stickies at the beginning of each area before posting

[x-reverend]

The Qur'anic Manuscripts

There has been a polemic going on that the Qur'an does not have manuscripts from the first century of hijra. However, this is not true. Many fragments of early Qur'anic manuscripts were shown by Orientalists notably Nabia Abbott in her work The Rise of the North Arabic script and its Kur'anic development, with a full description of the Kur'an manuscripts in the Oriental Institute (1939, University of Chicago Press). There she discusses some of the Quranic manuscripts, dated from second half of the first century hijra onwards, at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. The aim of this page is to highlight some of the early Qur'anic manuscripts to refute the claim that the Qur'an lacks manuscripts from the first century of hijra.

The dig at the Great Mosque in San`a', Yemen, had found a large number of manuscripts of the Qur'an dating from first century of hijra. The date of building the Great Mosque in San`a' goes back to 6th year of hijra when the Prophet(P) entrusted one of his companions to build a mosque. The mosque was extended and enlarged by Islamic rulers from time to time. In 1385 H/1965 CE heavy rains fell on San`a'. The Great Mosque was affected and the ceiling in the north west corner was damaged. During the survey, the workers discovered a large vault full of parchment and paper manuscripts of both the Qur'an and non-Qur'anic material.

The UNESCO, an arm of the United Nations, had compiled a CD containing some of the dated San`a' manuscripts as a part of "Memory of the World" programme. In this CD there are more than 40 Qur'anic manuscripts which are dated from 1st century of hijra, one of them belonging to early 1st century. More than 45 manuscripts have been dated from the period 1st / 2nd century of hijra. We will be showing only a few examples below.

A few more examples of the 1st and 1st / 2nd century Qur'anic manuscripts can be found in the book Masahif San`a' (1985, Dar al-Athar al-Islamiyyah). This book is a catalogue of an exhibition at the Kuwait National Museum, with articles by Hussa Sabah Salim al-Sabah, G. R. Puin, M. Jenkins, U. Dreibholz in both Arabic and English. It is expected that the San`a' manuscripts will throw a great deal of light on the early Islamic history of calligraphy and illumination and even the various ahruf (they were seven) in which the Qur'an was revealed.

A few words of caution concerning the dating of the Qur'anic manuscripts need to be mentioned. It is to be remembered that assigning a date to an undated early Qur'anic manuscript is rarely simple especially in the absence of Wakf marking. There is a tendency to assume that those in large scripts and without vowels are of the earliest date. This assumption, true to some extent, is nevertheless misleading in two respects. It ignores that fact that small as well as large masahif of the Qur'an were among the earliest written and that both types continued to be written thereafter. Though the assumption that manuscripts with the vowels must be considered later than those without is true in some cases, it is not always so, for some very early manuscripts of the Qur'an, originally written without vowels, may well have been voweled later. Furthermore, the first vowel system came into use shortly after the first masahif were written. There are also examples of later masahif which were unvoweled even after 3 centuries after hijra!

As a matter of caution, we stress the fact that we are only showing a single leaf of the manuscripts in the cases below. A manuscript may contain additional Surahs. The reader is advised to go through the references for additional information.

On The Origins Of Kufic Script

1. Introduction

It has been claimed by the Christian missionaries that according to the Muslim scholars

... the Kufic Script which, according to Qur'an scholars Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi, did not appear until the late eighth century.

In other words, according to the missionaries, Lings and Safadi say that Kufic script did not appear until the late eighth century. Therefore, the conclusions drawn by the Christian missionaries suggest that

... both the Samarkand and Topkapi Codices could not have been written earlier than 150 years after the 'Uthmanic Recension was [supposedly] compiled - at the earliest during the late 700's or early 800's since both are written in the Kufic script (Gilchrist 1989:144-147).

It appears that the origin of this claim goes back to John Gilchrist, a Christian missionary from South Africa, who claimed about the Qur'anic manuscripts that:

Virtually all the relevant texts surviving were written in a developed form of Kufic script or in one of the other scripts known to have developed some time after the early codification of the Qur'an text. None of them can be reliably dated earlier than the second half of the second century of the Islamic era. We shall proceed to analyse some of these scripts.

This assertion that Kufic script originated very late, not earlier than 150 years after hijra, has been repeated in almost every Christian missionary writing against Islam on the internet. See for example the writings of Joseph Smith and the 'Sermon Series' on The Fairy Tails of the Qur'an.

That a Christian missionary quotes yet another missionary without proper verification is not too surprising. Bruce McDowell and Anees Zaka quoting Joseph Smith say that Kufic script:

... did not appear until the 790s of later.[1]

Similarly, using the services of Joseph Smith, N. A. Newman claims that the Kufic script:

... thought to date from about 790 AD.[2]

In this paper we would examine the claim the origins of Kufic script in the light of early Kufic Qur'anic manuscripts as well as Islamic inscriptions.

2. The Origins Of Kufic Script

We begin with the quote of a Muslim, al-Qalqashandi who maintains that Kufic is said to have been the earliest script from which the others developed, he writes:



The Arabic script [khatt] is the one which is now known as Kufic. From it evolved all the present pens.[3]

This is a very profound statement as its findings differ greatly from missionaries' assertions! Though Nabia Abbott's conclusions perhaps may not go so far as to agree ad totum with this conclusion we find that she does say:

...the Muslim tradition that the original Arabic script was Kufic (that is, Hiran or Anbaran) is one of those statements which, though known to be half wrong, may yet be half right.[4]

The terms that came to be applied to these scripts by early Arabs themselves could not have the chronological significance that some later Arabs and most Western writers have put to them. For is it the case that the name of a thing (e.g., Kufic) necessarily indicates its ultimate origin? The fact is that the script which later came to be known as Kufic has its origin far earlier than the founding of the town of Kufah.

Imamuddin writes:

The origin of Kufic or the angular style of Arabic script is traced back to about one hundred years before the foundation of Kufah (17H / 638CE) to which town it owes its name because of its development there.[5]

Similarly Moritz writing in Encyclopaedia Of Islam asserts:

Although the script [i.e., Kufic] itself,.... was known in Mesopotamia at least 100 years before the foundation of Kufa, we may conjecture that it received its name from the town in which it was first put to official use...[6]

That is to say, the town was founded in AH 17, and the Kufic style originated 100 years before that time! This conclusion is agreed upon by other writers too.[7] Khatibi and Sijelmassi inform us that:

The Arabs usually distinguish four types of pre-Islamic script: al-Hiri (from Hira), al-Anbari (from Anbar), al-Maqqi (from Mecca) and al-Madani (from Medina). The famous author of Fihrist, Ibn Nadim (died c. 390/999) was the first to use the word 'kufic', deriving it from the hiri script. However, Kufic script cannot have originated in Kufa, since that city was founded in 17/638, and the Kufic script is known to have existed before that date, but this great intellectual centre did enable calligraphy to be developed and perfected aesthetically from the pre-Islamic scripts.[8]

What is of note here is that it is the Hiran script which later came to be classified as the Kufic. Abbott writes:

... Kufah and Basrah did not start their careers as Muslim cities until the second decade of Islam. But these cities were located closer to Anbar and Hirah in Irak, Kufah being but a few miles south of Hirah. We have already seen the major role the two earlier cities played in the evolution of Arabic writing, and it is but natural to expect them to have developed a characteristic script to which the newer cities of Kufah and Basrah fell heir, so that for Kufic and Basran script one is tempted to substitute Anbaran and Hiran ... our study so far shows that the script of Hirah must have been the leading script in the 6th century and as such must have influenced all later scripts, including the Makkan - Madinan.[9]

The city of Kufah, therefore, inherited and took on the script which was already prevailing in Hirah. The script, as we have mentioned, which was later to be titled as Kufic.

3. Martin Lings & Yasin Safadi On Kufic Script

The missionaries have argued that it is the view of both Martin Lings and Yasin Safadi that Kufic script

did not appear until the late eighth century.

The claim of Lings and Safadi allegedly saying that Kufic script did not appear until late eight century has even entered the Christian missionary publications such as the one by Steven Masood. He says concerning the script in the Samaqand codex (note the same argument!):

It is written in a particular type of Kufic script which, according to modern experts in Arabic calligraphy, did not exist until late in the eighth century CE and was not used at all in Makkah and Madinah in the seventh century.[10]

It is difficult to see how this view can be ascribed to Safadi, because he himself, in his work Islamic Calligraphy, details the milestone from the period of the Caliph `Abd al-Malik (685-705 CE) which he describes as being in the Kufic script![11]

Concerning the Kufic script, Yasin Safadi says:

The Kufic script, which reached perfection in the second half of the the eighth century, attained a pre-eminence which endured for more than three hundred years ....[12]

In the chapter "Kufic Calligraphy" Martin Lings says:

The first calligraphic perfection of Islam is to be found in the monumental script which may be said to have reached its fullness in the last half of the second century AH which ended in 815 AD.[13]

Can we then assume from this, taking into account the previous evidence, that Safadi held the belief that the script first originated at this time? No, rather he is clearly stating that it is here when it reached its 'perfection'. Lings and Safadi again arrived at a similar conclusion for their book in honour of the 1976 Qur'an exhibition at the British Museum:

Kufic may be said to have reached its perfection, for Qur'anic manuscripts, in the second half of the second Islamic century which ended in A.D. 814.[14]

One wonders how did the missionaries conclude the appearance of Kufic script in the late eight century when both Lings and Safadi say that the script reached its perfection in the second half of second Islamic century! Concerning the style of script of Samarqand codex, there are many examples of it from the first century of hijra in the form of inscriptions. We will cite a few of them.

Inscriptions Near Madinah Of The Early Years Of Hijra [c. 4 AH].

Inscription A

Inscription B

Inscription C
These set of inscriptions from near Madinah, although written in a striking Kufic script, bear no date. They have been dated c. 4 AH using the internal evidence. These set of inscriptions are also the earliest to mention the names of Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Ali and Muhammad Ibn `Abdullah(P) etc.

The Christian missionaries are found to be not only incorrect in their dating of the origins of the Kufic script, but also erroneous in their opinion that Kufic is not a script that we would expect to have been employed in the Hijaz during the Caliphate of `Uthman. In respect to Lings and Safadi, the missionaries have simply misread their statements.

To conclude, Abbott thinks that the `Uthmanic Qur'anic manuscripts were probably written in Makkan-Madinan scripts.[15] The manuscript attributed to `Uthman, located at al-Hussein mosque in Cairo, is indeed written in Madinan script.

4. Kufic Qur'anic Manuscripts From First & Second Centuries Of Hijra

The best way to refute the claim of Christian missionaries about the appearance of Kufic script (and hence the Kufic Qur'ans!) around late eighth century CE (or mid-to-late second century of hijra) is to show the existence of Kufic Qur'anic manuscripts from first and early second century of hijra. The following museums have Kufic Qur'anic manuscripts from 1st and early 2nd century of hijra.

Austrian National Library, Vienna, Austria: Kufic manuscripts A. Perg 203, A Perg. 201 and A Perg. 193 + 196 + 208 are dated from the beginning of second century hijra. Manuscripts A. Perg. 186 and A. Perg. 197 are dated to middle second century of hijra.[16]

Beit al-Qur'an, Manama, Bahrain: Manuscript 1611-mkh235 is from late 1st century of hijra. Manuscript 1620-mkh233 is from 1st / 2nd century of hijra.

Maktabat al-Jami` al-Kabir (Maktabat al-Awqaf), The Great Mosque, San`a', Yemen: Examples of first century Kufic manuscripts are available in Memory Of The World: San`a' Manuscripts, CD-ROM Presentation, UNESCO.

5. Kufic Inscriptions From 1st Century Of Hijra

The Christian missionaries' arbitrary dating of the origins of Kufic script also contradicts early inscriptions which have been commented upon by both Western and Muslim writers.

31 AH, Tombstone of `Abd al-Rahman Ibn Khair al-Hajri. This was first published by H. M. El-Hawary who said that it is inscribed in:
... carelessly written Cufic script.[17]

Nabia Abbott reasserts:

The earliest Muslim inscription, the tombstone of `Abd al-Rahman Ibn Khair al-Hajari, dated 31/652... It is certainly not Makkan and can safely be considered as poor Kufic.[18]


Pre-93 AH, the milestone, dated from the time of the Caliph `Abd al-Malik (reign 685 - 705CE), written in Kufic script. It reads:
The highway... `Abdullah `Abd al-Malik, amir of the faithful, Allah's mercy be upon him, this mile is eight miles [from Jerusalem].[19]


Pre-93 AH, another milestone, dated from the time of the Caliph `Abd al-Malik (reign 685 - 705CE), Safadi informs us:
Early ornamental Kufic on a milestone placed on the Damascus-Jerusalem road by order of the Caliph `Abd al-Malik (685-705).[20]

6. Dated Manuscripts & Dating Of The Manuscripts: The Difference

A clear distinction needs to be made between dated (or datable) manuscripts and dating of the manuscripts for proper orientation. A steadily increasing number of manuscripts of both the Qur'an and the New Testament with confident allocation of dates by various palaeographers can obscure the fact that we do not have absolute secure dates for majority of the New Testament and Qur'anic manuscripts.

In the case of Greek documentary papyri such as private letters or receipts, the dates are often present. Most of the New Testament manuscripts are written in a literary rather than a documentary hand. Therefore, it always needs a careful investigation of the evidence and involves comparing it with datable parallels to arrive at a reasonable dating. In the case of Qur'anic manuscripts the dating is carried out by studying the nature of the script, papyrus, ornamentation and illumination. The palaeographers then date the manuscript to a particular century during which such characteristics were seen, a process similar to the one used in the dating of New Testament manuscripts.

The Qur'anic manuscript becomes datable when there is a note on it either from the scribe or the waqf showing the date of its accession in a library or the production of the manuscript itself.

Keeping this in mind let us move over to the statement of the Christian missionaries. They say:

Aside from some of the manuscripts discovered in the loft of the Great Mosque in Sanaa in 1972, no manuscript fragment of the Qur'an can be dated earlier than first quarter of the 8th century A.D. - nearly 100 years after Muhammad. (Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, Annemarie Schimmel, 1984, p.4)

The statement of the missionaries give an impression that Muslims do not have a datable Qur'anic manuscripts before first quarter of the eighth century. The quote from Schimmel's book when read in the context says:

The terminus ante quem for a fragment or a copy of the Koran can be established only when the piece has a waqf note, showing the date of its accession in a certain library. The earliest datable fragments go back to the first quarter of the eighth century...[21]

Schimmel is saying that to firmly date a manuscript, we need something like a waqf note. She then mentions about the earliest datable manuscript that goes back to the first quarter of the eighth century. This manuscript is a very famous one and is located at the Egyptian National Library (was formerly at `Amr Mosque), dated 107 AH / 725 CE . Moritz has reproduced a large number of pages from this codex.[22] Arnold and Grohmann assigns this specific date.[23] The dating of this manuscript has been recently corroborated by Marilyn Jenkins of Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) by studying the ornamentation.[24]

A folio of the manuscript is reproduced below.



Folios contains Surahs Ya-Sin, 72-83 and Al-Saffat, 1-14. It is written in mashq script, on vellum. No aya markers and no surah headings.

It is not true that the earliest datable manuscript goes back to the first quarter of the eighth century. The famous palaeographer Adolf Grohmann informs us that

one dated copy exists from the first century of Higra and two exists from the second, seven only from the third century of Higra.[25]

The first century manuscript is dated 94 AH / 712-13 CE and is from Iran. The two second century hijra copies, dating 102 AH / 720 CE and 107 AH / 725 CE are in Egyptian National Library, Cairo; the latter we have already discussed above.[26]

A word of caution needs to be added. Whenever there is a waqf marking on the manuscripts, it is the burden of the paleographer to estimate the time between the writing of a manuscript and its being deposited in a mosque or any other religious institution. In other words, the wakf marking is not the true representative of the exact age of the manuscript. It only overestimates the date of writing of the manuscript.

No discussion about the dated manuscripts is finished without the mention of the status of New Testament manuscripts. We have no dated manuscripts of the New Testament until the Uspenski gospels of 835 CE.[27] This is not very unusual, as literary documents were not generally dated in antiquity. The first literary manuscript (Vindob. Med. Gr. 1) dated by the scribe is a text of Dioscorides from 512 CE now in Vienna.[28]

In conclusion, we have seen that the script which came to know as Kufic existed before the founding of city of Kufah. It was this script which reached its fullness or perfection in the second half of the eighth century CE. This is a clear refutation of the claims of John Gilchrist and other missionaries whi have asserted that Kufic script originated very late; not earlier than 150 years after hijra.

And Allah knows best!



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


References
[1] B. A. McDowell & A. Zaka, Muslims And Christians At The Table: Promoting Biblical Understanding Among North American Muslims, 1999, P & R Publishing: Phillipsburg (NJ), p. 76. Also see ref. 9 on p. 287.

[2] N. A. Newman, Muhammad, The Qur'an & Islam, 1996, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 314. Joseph Smith's work is cited on p. 320.

[3] Abi al-`Abbas Ahmad al-Qalqashandi, Kitab Subh al-A`sha, 1914, Volume III, Dar al-Kutub al-Khadiwiyyah: Al-Qahirah, p. 15.

[4] N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, 1939, University of Chicago Press, p. 17.

[5] S. M. Imamuddin, Arabic Writing And Arab Libraries, 1983, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd.: London, p. 12.

[6] B. Moritz, "Arabic Writing", Encyclopaedia Of Islam (Old Edition), 1913, E. J. Brill Publishers, Leyden & Luzac & Co. London, p. 387.

[7] A. Siddiqui, The Story Of Islamic Calligraphy, 1990, Sarita Books: Delhi, p. 9.

[8] A. Khatibi & M. Sijelmassi, The Splendor Of Islamic Calligraphy, 1994, Thames and Hudson, pp. 96-97.

[9] N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, op. cit., p. 17.

[10] S. Masood, The Bible And The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001, OM Publication: Carlisle, UK, p. 19.

[11] Y. H. Safadi, Islamic Calligraphy, 1979, Shambhala Publications, Inc.: Boulder (Colorado), p. 11.

[12] ibid., p. 10. See also a similar assertion on p. 42.

[13] M. Lings, The Quranic Art Of Calligraphy And Illumination, 1976, World Of Islam Festival Trust, p. 16.

[14] M. Lings & Y. H. Safadi, The Qur'an: Catalogue Of An Exhibition Of Quranic Manuscripts At The British Library, 1976, World of Islam Festival Publishing Company Ltd.: London, p. 12.

[15] N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, op. cit., p. 21.

[16] H. Loebenstein, Koranfragmente Auf Pergament Aus Der Papyrussammlung Der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Textband, 1982, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek: Wein, pp. 23-43. This contains the description of the manuscripts, see pp. 36-. H. Loebenstein, Koranfragmente Auf Pergament Aus Der Papyrussammlung Der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Tafelband, 1982, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek: Wein, See Tafel 11-19. This contains the pictures of the manuscripts.

[17] H. M. El-Hawary, "The Most Ancient Islamic Monument Known Dated AH 31 (AD 652) From The Time Of The Third Calif `Uthman", Journal Of The Royal Asiatic Society, 1930, p. 327.

[18] N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, ibid., pp. 18-19.

[19] A. Welch, Calligraphy In The Arts Of The Muslim World, 1979, University Of Texas Press: Austin, pp. 44-45.

[20] Y. H. Safadi, Islamic Calligraphy, op. cit., p. 11.

[21] A. Schimmel, Calligraphy And Islamic Culture, 1984, New York University Press: New York & London, p. 4.

[22] B. Moritz, Arabic Palaeography: A Collection Of Arabic Texts From The First Century Of The Hidjra Till The Year 1000, 1905, Cairo, See Pl. 1-12.

[23] T. W. Arnold & A. Grohmann, The Islamic Book: A Contribution To Its Art And History From The VII-XVIII Century, 1929, The Pegasus Press, p. 22.

[24] M. Jenkins, "A Vocabulary Of Ummayad Ornament", Masahif San`a', 1985, Dar al-Athar al-Islamiyyah, pp. 23.

[25] A. Grohmann, "The Problem Of Dating Early Qur'ans", 1958, Der Islam, p. 216.

[26] ibid., see foonote 17.

[27] B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts Of The Greek Bible: An Introduction To Greek Palaeography, 1981, Oxford University Press, p. 102, No. 26,

[28] R. Devreesse, Introduction à L'étude Des Manuscrits Grecs, 1954, Librairie C. Klincksieck: Paris, p. 288.

[x-reverend]

The Qiblah Of Early Mosques: Jerusalem Or Makkah?

It was claimed by Crone, Cook and Smith that the early mosques pointed towards an unnamed sanctuary in northern Arabia or even close vicinity of Jerusalem. However, a closer analysis using the modern tools available to us show that the Qiblahs of early mosques were oriented towards astronomical alignments; winter sunrise of mosque in Egypt and winter sunsets for mosques in Iraq. It was shown conclusively that the early mosques do not point at northern Arabia or even close vicinity of Jerusalem. We also added the study of 12 early mosques in Negev highlands to support our conclusions.

In the early centuries of Islam, Muslim did not have tools to determine the Qiblah with precision. Only from third century onwards mathematical solutions for determining Qiblah were available; even then their use was not widespread. The folk astronomy retained its strength as suggested by various mosques in Cairo, Cordova and Samarqand. This gave rise to various directions of Qiblah, sometimes way off from the true direction.

[Christian2]

x-reverend,

The dig at the Great Mosque in San`a', Yemen, had found a large number of manuscripts of the Qur'an dating from first century of hijra. The date of building the Great Mosque in San`a' goes back to 6th year of hijra when the Prophet(P) entrusted one of his companions to build a mosque.

The Qur'ans found in Yemen do not match what the Muslims have today.

Source:http://www.wsfi.net/Documents/WHAT%20IS%20THE%20KORAN%20BY%20TOBY%20LESTER.HTM

Small clip: Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.

This is a report of a German scholar who worked on the Yemen Korans:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/8e2774ca8e2e08bb