The problems posed by the scripta defectiva of early versions of the Koran inevitably led to the growth of different centers with their own variant traditions of how the texts should be pointed or vowelized. Despite ‘Uthman’s order to destroy all texts other than his own, it is evident that the older codices survived.

Charles Adams says, "It must be emphasized that far from there being a single text passed down inviolate from the time of ‘Uthman’s commission, literally thousands of variant readings of particular verses were known in the first three (Muslim) centuries. These variants affected even the ‘Uthmanic codex, making it difficult to know what its true form may have been."

Some Muslims preferred codices other than the ‘Uthmanic, for example, those of Ibn Mas’ud, Uba ibn Ka’b, and Abu Musa. Eventually, under the influence of the great Koranic scholar Ibn Mujahid (died 935), there was a definite canonization of one system of consonants and a limit placed on the variations of vowels used in the text that resulted in acceptance of seven systems.

But other scholars accepted ten readings, and still others accepted fourteen readings. Even Ibn Mujahid’s seven provided fourteen possibilities since each of the seven was traced through two different transmitters, viz,

1. Nafi of Medina according to Warsh and Qalun

2. Ibn Kathir of Mecca according to al-Bazzi and Qunbul

3. Ibn Amir of Damascus according to Hisham and Ibn Dakwan

4. Abu Amr of Basra according to al-Duri and al-Susi

5. Asim of Kufa according to Hafs and Abu Bakr

6. Hamza of Kuga according to Khalaf and Khallad

7. Al-Kisai of Kufa according to al Duri and Abul Harith

In the end three systems prevailed, those of Warsh (d. 812) from Nafi of Medina, Hafs (d. 805) from Asim of Kufa, and al-Duri (d. 860) from Abu Amr of Basra.

At present in modern Islam, two versions seem to be in use: that of Asim of Kufa through Hafs, which was given a kind of official seal of approval by being adopted in the Egyptian edition of the Koran in 1924; and that of Nafi through Warsh, which is used in parts of Africa other than Egypt.

As Charles Adams reminds us:

It is of some importance to call attention to a possible source of misunderstanding with regard to the variant readings of the Quran. The seven (versions) refer to actual written and oral text, to distinct versions of Quranic verses, whose differences, though they may not be great, are nonetheless substantial. Since the very existence of variant readings and versions of the Quran goes against the doctrinal position toward the Holy Book held by many modern Muslims, it is not uncommon in an apologetic context to hear the seven (versions) explained as modes of recitation; in fact the manner and technique of recitation are an entirely different matter.

Guillaume also refers to the variants as "not always trifling in significance." For example, the last two verses of sura LXXXV, Al Buraj, read: (21) hawa qur’anun majidun; (22) fi lawhin mahfuzun/in. The last syllable is in doubt.

If it is in the genitive -in, it gives the meaning "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet"—a reference to the Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. If it is the nominative ending -un, we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." There are other passages with similar difficulties dealing with social legislation.

If we allow that there were omissions, then why not additions? The authenticity of many verses in the Koran has been called into question by Muslims themselves. Many Kharijites, who were followers of ‘Ali in the early history of Islam, found the sura recounting the story of Joseph offensive, an erotic tale that did not belong in the Koran.

Hirschfeld questioned the authenticity of verses in which the name Muhammad occurs, there being something rather suspicious in such a name, meaning ‘Praised’, being borne by the Prophet.

The name was certainly not very common. However the Prophet’s name does occur in documents that have been accepted as genuine, such as the Constitution of Medina.

Most scholars believe that there are interpolations in the Koran; these interpolations can be seen as interpretative glosses on certain rare words in need of explanation.

More serious are the interpolations of a dogmatic or political character, which seem to have been added to justify the elevation of ‘Uthman as caliph to the detriment of ‘Ali.

Then there are other verses that have been added in the interest of rhyme, or to join together two short passages that on their own lack any connection.

Bell and Watt carefully go through many of the amendments and revisions and point to the unevenness of the Koranic style as evidence for a great many alterations in the Koran:

There are indeed many roughness of this kind, and these, it is here claimed, are fundamental evidence for revision. Besides the points already noticed—hidden rhymes, and rhyme phrases not woven into the texture of the passage—there are the following:

abrupt changes of rhyme
repetition of the same rhyme word or rhyme phrase in adjoining verses
the intrusion of an extraneous subject into a passage otherwise homogeneous
a differing treatment of the same subject in neighbouring verses, often with repetition of words and phrasesbreaks in grammatical construction which raise difficulties in exegesis
abrupt changes in length of verse
sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on
the juxtaposition of apparently contrary statements; the juxtaposition of passages of different date, with intrusion of fare phrases into early verses.


In many cases a passage has alternative continuations which follow one another in the present text. The second of the alternatives is marked by a break in sense and by a break in grammatical construction, since the connection is not with what immediately precedes, but with what stands some distance back.

The Christian al-Kindi (not to be confused with the Arab, Muslim philosopher) writing around 830 C.E., criticized the Koran in similar terms:

The result of all this (process by which the Quran came into being) is patent to you who have read the scriptures and see how, in your book, histories are jumbled together and intermingled; an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked. Are such, now, the conditions of a revelation sent down from heaven?


Is such a book trustworthy?




MORGANITE

rkim291968

Not just Koran ...
I don't find any religious book trustworthy becase there are so many different ways to interpret. Stupid, evil people have done that to their liking and have caused so much death and grief throughout the history. It is still happening today.

Morganite

That is a very interesting take.

Can you be more specific and give examples of as many sacred books as posslble and explain how you believe they have contributed to mankind's ills?




MORGANITE

rkim291968

Is that really necessary? Take fundamental muslims, Taliban e.g., and see how they are interpreting Koran.

baidarka

Agree completely. It is like the conversation I was having with a co-worker the other day. He is a devout Harvest church adherent. He referenced some obscure quote in the bible to refute the supposition that Jesus had a son, who was born in France.

I told him, we have a manufacturing facility a mere 800 miles away from us. Things are happening at this moment, with currently living witnesses, event being recorded real time--in writing, in English, yet it is difficult to get a straight story out of our manufacturing plant. With the Bible, or any other holy script, you have events that happened a couple of millenias in the past, halfway around the world, all the witnesses are dead, and things were written down in a dead language after being passed down by word of mouth, often for generations. Is any of it reliable? I doubt it.

That said, the Q'uran is probably more reliable than the Bible, simply because it is a newer document.

rkim291968

That's a good real life example. Even simple e-mails exchanges at my work are often misinterepted and cause a lot of mishap.

chrisl

There is no need to "doubt" in this matter. It is simple to research and verify. There are source documents in existence today in libraries and museums around the world that date to within decades of the original writings that form the Christian Greek scriptures (the New Testament.) There is no question that the NT is accurate and uncorrupted.

And while we do not have manuscripts of that age for the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), there is much other evidence of their integrity. Fragments of some OT books were found in the Dead Sea caves that date to the 2nd century BCE. They reveal no significant corruption of the texts. There are many other similar cases but the Dead Sea Scrolls are probably the most well-known.

With the wealth of manuscripts, scrolls and papyrus fragments available today, it is uninformed to claim that the Bible texts are somehow unreliable or fraudulent. Secular and religious scholarship does not agree.

If you are interested, this URL has interesting info about how we have arrived at our modern Bible:

Comparing Translations

I can't vouch for the author's theology but I find his analysis of Bible scholarship to be very interesting and easy to follow.

Frankly, I view the age of the Quran as a weakness. To me, if I had to start from scratch looking for the genuine written word of our Creator, I would start with the oldest books. It makes perfect sense that God's word would be one of the first documents recorded by mankind, if not the first.

Chris

G4-450

While some things in certain versions of the bible show that they have not been corrupted they also demostrate everything in the bibles they are and there corruptions, asn also directly by people who abused them at those times, especially with Gospals which do not have authors.

The Al Qur'an iis the word of God according to JP ii


Why

do a search about JP's investigation on the crucifixion of Jesus and if you can find it anymore, JP discovered that the Quran had over 25 proofs of been the word of God and asks believers of every faith to believe only in one god and stop the wrongdoing.

this link also has some interesting facts to read up on.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative.html

I am not saying the Bible is totally corrupted as is, i am saying there is clearly written corruption in it and some repented and some did not yet as we see today who still use the bible (Torah and Gospels) as well as the rest of it to destructive ends.

baidarka

Research only gets you so far, if it is researching old texts. Even the old texts are based on information passed on by word of mouth. I trust archaeological evidence, such as concrete artifacts much more. But then, you're still open to interpretation.

As for the Q'uran being less reliable, due to it's newness, that is probably true, if you are referring to identical events covered by the Bible and the Torah. However, as far as events that occurred during Mohammed's time, I would tend to believe that they are recorded more accurately than the Bible covers Jesus' life.

chrisl

So your doubt is not really so much about the subsequent written transmission as it is about the trustworthiness of the original message?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "archaeological evidence" and "concrete artifacts." To me, an ancient scroll recovered from a cave or a papyrus fragment found in an Eqyptian excavation would definitely qualify. Can you expand on this a little bit?

I agree that the Quran would be the most reliable source of info about the teachings of Islam and Mohammed's time, but I don't think it's valid to say that it must be more accurate than the Bible simply because it is more recent.

The Bible has withstood many centuries of criticism, scrutiny and attacks by opposers and enemies. IMHO, the Bible's long history supports its accuracy and reliability rather than the other way around. It's kind of like a very old and respected legal precedent or court case. Such a precedent deserves respect because it is old and has withstood more challenges.

Chris