Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran"

Larry wrote: Hasan,    Jack asked you to produce the 4 "personal copies." 1. Abdullah Ibn Masud, 2. Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudaifah, 3. Ubayy b. Ka'ab, 4. Muadh bin Jabal."     You replied, "Jack, I think you have realized that in the times we live it is not possible so thus you ask for it.    1. What did you mean by "...in the times we live in it is not possible..."?    2. You said that "the Prophet allowed several Companions to have their own manuscripts (collection of fragments.)" Are you saying that the Companions manuscripts were simply incomplete fragments of the Qur'an? Why would the Prophet allow this?    3. The "Kufan Codex" of Abdullah Ibn Masud, Muhammad's personal servant, differed in the order of the Surahs and did not have Chapters 1, 113, and 114 of the "official" copy of the Qur'an.    4. You said earlier that "Ibn Masud was well within his right to compile his personal copy any way he wanted. It was for his PERSONAL (emphasis yours) use."    Are you saying that Ibn Masud simply compiled his version of the Qur'an in a haphazard way, leaving out Chapters 1, 113, 114, simply because because it was his "personal" copy and not meant to be read by anyone else?    5. Ubayy b Ka'ab, Muhammad's secretary after Muhammad came to Medina, had a version that differed from the "official" Qur'an of Uthman because it had two additional chapters; Surat Al-Khal and Surat Al-Afd. Ubayy died during the reign of Umar, so he was not alive when Uthman burned his version of the Qur'an.    I haven't really seen anyone explain these two variant writings, or omissions, and why they are not in the "official" Qur'an. These are contents of the various texts, not mere changes in pronunciation and recitation or dialects.    6. You also earlier said that the Qur'an has no discrepancies, yet the Qur'an varies widely in it's pronouncements about the role and status of the "Peoples of the Book" and how they are to be seen and treated by Muslims. Why the remarkably striking differences? Larry

Edited by honeto - 27 February 2012 at 3:19pm

Hasan,

   It's nice to hear from you, I can always expect a vigorous, but respectful, dialog between us, something I have been missing in my posts of late.

   Your answers (based on my questions) are interesting and I am happy to comment on them.

   You say that even if some surahs were taken out or are missing,

   "that is not the same as transforming word of God through rewriting, reinterpretations and retranslation without any originals hundreds of years later over and over as in the case of the Bible, it will just have some verses missing? And that's all you will get in the result, if we assume what you have come up with is true. God's word, the Quran is still with us today, pure in it's original language and state, no one has rewritten it, once it was written down first, and finalized by those entrusted of that job. Can any other book claim and prove that status?"

   My response to you would be that if there were ANY differences between various copies of the Quran it would show that the present Quran is not word-for-word pure and unchanged in ANY way.

   Either Ubayy b Ka'ab's version had the additional chapters, Surah Al-Khal or Surah Al-Afd, or it did not. And either Abdullah Ibn Masud's "Kufan Codex" differed from the "official" Quran of Uthman by leaving out Surahs 1, 113, and 114, or it did not

   You say, and I agree, "No one has rewritten it, ONCE it was written down first, and FINALIZED by those entrusted of that job (Uthman's standardization)."

   What I am saying is that IF there were, in fact, earlier variant mushafs (above) that did not correspond exactly to Uthman's mushaf, who finalized the Qur'an in the form it is in today, then it is not EXACTLY the same. I am not speaking of diacritical marks or pronunciations, but MISSING Surahs that are not in today's Quran.

   I agree with you that every letter and word of Uthman's mushaf is in the Qur'an as it exists today. I am just saying that if it has missing verses then it cannot be said that Uthman's mushaf is the same as ANY earlier mushaf, including the original.

   You made the point that the Bible was rewritten, reinterpreted and retranslated "without any originals." I would simply say that the Qur'an has no existing original either. And it cannot be proved that the "original" Qur'an (Hafsah's Codex) is EXACTLY the same as Uthman's mushaf because it was intentionally destroyed by early Muslim authorities and cannot be compared.

   Even though this forum is not about the Bible I will still comment on some of your statements concerning it. I agree that there are no existing "originals" of any chapter in the Bible, Old or New Testament. The oldest existing copy of any book in the Bible is a copy of the book of Isaiah, written in approximately 200 B.C.

   I would add that the Hebrew of the Isaiah scroll of 200 B.C. is IDENTICAL to the Hebrew used in the Jewish Old Testament or Torah as it is written today.

   The Bible was ORIGINALLY written is different languages, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and has no "original" chapter in ANY ONE LANGUAGE. The Qur'an was written in the "original" Arabic only, so the two cannot be fairly compared in that way.

    I agree with you that the Bible has been translated and reinterpreted many times which is the only way a written work, in various different languages and translations can be when translated from one language to another. There is NO translation, including the Qur'an, that is EXACTLY the same, word-for-word, when translated into another language. Languages are precise, but when translated into another language there are always variations.

   In my previous message to you I pointed out some differences based on translation. For example, in the Qur'an when Gabriel appears to Mary and announces the "gift of a HOLY son," as in the translation used here on Islamicity. In English, or any other language, translations of the words have various forms. This is shown in some English translations of the Qur'an it is written that it is the "gift of a RIGHTEOUS son." This is a common problem when translating anything into another language.

   The Septuagint is the oldest Greek version of the Old Testament, traditionally said to have been translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolemy II.

   My Bible, the New King James Version, differs from the original King James Bible because the language is modernized from the Old English of the 17th Century that was used when it was originally translated into English.

   And even in my New King James Version there are slight differences in translation. For example:

   Isaiah 53:5 says "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed."

   The word, "wounded" has a footnote that states that the literal translation can also mean "pierced through."

   The word, "stripes" has a footnote that states that the literal translation can also mean "Blows that cut in."

   There are books called the "Apocrypha" which are various religious writings of uncertain origin that are included in the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate Old Testaments. These books are considered as "inspired" by some, but regarded as "works of doubtful authorship or authenticity" by most modern scholars and Biblical authorities. These books are not included in the New King James Bible that I use.

   The point I want to make is that the claim that the Bible is "corrupted" based on differences like these between versions, is an unfair criticism that does not take into account the circumstances I spoke of above. What "version" of the Bible is referred to as "corrupt" by non-Christians? And what "corruption" is being referred to, the fact that there are different words between versions? Or simply that there are different versions?

   Comparisons between the Qur'an and Bible are simply not legitimate based on whether the Qur'an has stayed the same in ARABIC and whether the Bible has stayed the same in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. Christianity has never taken the Bible and made sure ALL versions are exactly the same IN EACH LANGUAGE and then destroy any variant readings. The Qur'an was written and differing mushafs were compared in Arabic only. But if one reads an ENGLISH, or any other language than the Arabic version of the Qur'an, there will always be differences in the words used in that translation. So the claim that the Qur'an is perfect word-for-word applies only to Uthman's mushaf in the original Arabic.

   Since we do not possess the "original" writings of the Bible in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages, it is impossible to prove that they are identical to the books as they are written today in those languages, just the same as with the Qur'an.

   And the Biblical Old Testament, written in Hebrew, has the additional burden of being written millenia before the Qur'an, making the task of finding or authenticating the "originals" impossible for all intents and purposes.

Larry

Hasan,

   I just wanted to state, for the benefit of some others, that the above writings are by me and are not "cut-and-pasted" or plagiarized from any source. I used the dictionary for some descriptions of things like the Apocrypha, for an example or emphasis and facts such as dates, numbers, etc. And any Bible quotes are taken from my New King James Authorized Version Bible word-for-word.

Larry


      

    

   

    

   

Edited by Larry - 09 October 2012 at 2:30am