Posted by
1683 AD on Friday, September 24, 2010 11:38:21 PM
Supporting information / Appendix
_____________________________________
Altering the written Qur'an / Mushaf is forbidden.
_____________________________________
We will now briefly touch upon the firmly held and substantiated belief among Islamic Supremacists that it has always been forbidden to make any changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. The commitment of Islamic Supremacists to this belief would appear to be unshakeable, at least if we take into consideration all of their comments on the issue. However, evidence indicates that their proclaimed beliefs have not translated into practice through much of the history of the written Qur'an / Mushaf after Uthman finalized it. Let it suffice for now us to simply establish the fact that under "pure" Islam, changes to the written Qur'an / Mushaf, no matter how well intentioned, are considered to be insults to Islam. Various verses from the written Qur'an Mushaf support us with this assertion. If the Islamic Supremacists claim that they were only referring to the recited Qur'an, then they will have to concede that they have no defense against anyone choosing to arbitrarily make other changes to it. They can't have it both ways.
From http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=302 ) :"It is absolutely inconceivable that there are any changes or any alterations to this Glorious Book of guidance from Allah.<p>15:9: It is We (Allah), Who has sent down this Quran, and We will assuredly guard it against corruption.<p><br>Allah declares that it is He who has sent down this Quran, and it is He Who will guard it against any corruption. <p> Allah has taken upon Himself the responsibility to safe-guard this Quran, and that is why the Quran is available today exactly the way it was revealed, and will remain so, Insha Allah, until the Day of Judgement. No changes can be made in the Holy Quran whatsoever.<p> <br>We must, as believers realize, is that it is a major major sin and a blasphemy to change even a letter of the Quran! No one is allowed to change even a single letter in the Quran, and the curse of Allah be upon those who change the very words of Allah Subhanah. May Allah take a severe accounting of the people who try to change anything from the original Quran.<p><br>2:79: Then woe to those who write The Book with their own hands, and then say, “This is from Allah”, so that they might gain some paltry worldly price. This writing of their hands will bring woe to them, and what they gain thereby will lead to their ruin!<br>".
From: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4a : "It is self-evident and is also required by the teachings of the Qur'an that every Muslim should do his utmost to prevent the alteration or suppression of the word of God. For in passages where there are no variations alleged the Qur'an had condemned earlier nations for altering or fabricating the "divine" scripture. Thus in one such passage we read: And woe unto those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say, "This is from God," that they may in this way obtain a small gain. Woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto them for what they gain thereby! (2:79). In the following passage condemns even hiding any part of the revelation, much less altering it: [God says:] Those who hide what We have revealed of the clear matters and of the guidance, after We have made it clear for the people, are accursed of God and accursed of those who (are entitled to) curse - except such of them as repent and amend and make manifest the truth. These it is to whom I turn in forgiveness. And I am the forgiving, the merciful (2:159-160)".
From http://al-quraan.org/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&cPath=4_22&products_id=146&zenid=07483929fa3784f1ef65798aff6bbdc6 : "Al-Kahf - Verses 27-7-- 'O Prophet! Recite what has been revealed to you from the Book of your Rabb: no one is authorized to change His Words and if you dare to make any change, you will find no refuge to protect you from Him (27)". Also: "No one is authorized to change the Word of Allah".
From http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/138007 : "The Qur'an claims that NO ONE can change the Word of Allah. Surah's 6:34; 10:34. To really "ink-it in," I repeat that the Qur'an is emphatic about a number of things concerning itself, and its testimony to the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures, that is, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Allah's word cannot contain error and cannot change. Allah is said to preserve the Qur'an Surah's 15:9; 85:21-22; and the words of Allah are said to be unalterable:- "there is none that can alter the words and decrees of Allah. Surah 6:34 and:- "-------none can change his words------" Surah 18:27 see also:- Surah's 6:115, 10:64 and 50:29".
From: http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/16/lol.03.html : "The Quran, Kyra, is the holy text of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. It holds tremendous spiritual and moral power. And as one cleric, one of the most important clerics in the Muslim world said today, he said, "If you deface the Quran, you are consciously and systematically insulting, humiliating and torturing all Muslims."
From: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4a : "For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by 'Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims. But we hear of no such resistance". ... "How could 'Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God?"
From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html : Muslims often claim that all that `Uthman sought to achieve was to cancel out the different readings of the quran QurŸan in its various dialects. The issue was, they say, purely one of eliminating different pronunciations. This line of reasoning is subjectively advanced to maintain the hypothesis that the quran QurŸan, in its written form, is a divinely preserved and therefore perfect text".
From http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/contra.html "No change can there be in the Words of Allah" and "There is none that can alter the Words of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those Apostles." or "the other Apostles also said so." (Suras 10:64 and 6:34).
From http://www.quran.net/quran/ProtectionOfTheQuran.htm : "Whereas the test of former people of the book lay in perpetuating the exact wordings of their scriptures, the real test of the Muslim ummah lies in the guarding of their scriptures’ meaning. Since the Muslims’ predecessors failed in their test, God Himself undertook the responsibility of keeping the Qur’an intact. As a matter of divine trial, Muslims have to prove that they do not deviate from the text in their explanations and interpretations, and of having kept everything in the exact place designated by the Quran. In their commentaries, they must take the greatest care to make no shift in emphasis, for that would be tantamount to altering the goals of the sacred text. (Note by 1683 AD: adding diacritical marks, etc., would cause a "shift in emphasis). When presenting the Qur’an to others, they should convey exactly what it asserts, no less and no more. The failure of Muslims as the people of the Qur’an lies in their forgetting its spirit and using the Qur’an simply as a book of blessing rather than a book of guidance. When Muslims’ degeneration reaches this stage, their activities become directed away from the basics of Islam. They refer to their religion, their holy book, as being matters of national pride. Others engage themselves in show business in the name of Islam. Yet others exploit it for political gain. All these activities, even if they are indulged in the name of the Qur’an and Islam, are all deviations from sacred principles. If Muslims persist in engaging themselves in such activities, they will not escape the wrath of God. If they feel satisfied that they will be saved on the ground that they have spared no effort in preserving the words of the Qur’an, they are grossly mistaken. God will hold them responsible for having distorted the meanings of the Qur’anic text out of all recognition. It should be clearly understood that the Muslims will be taken to task for the meaning of the text just as the earlier peoples of the Book had been taken to task for having altered the wording of their scriptures. It is on this point that the Muslims are perennially tested. Having changed the meaning of the Qur’an by their self-styled interpretations, they cannot escape the wrath of God simply because they have made no change in the text. No man can be tested unless he be given freedom of action as well. Muslims are free to interpret the text, but not to alter it. One must fully grasp this point that the punishment meted out to other peoples of the Book for altering the wordings of the divine text will be meted out to Muslims for altering the meaning of the text. Herein lies the gauge of the Muslims. If by their self-styled interpretations they change the meaning of the sacred text, they cannot be spared divine punishment by the mere fact of not having changed the actual words. It is because the test of man lies in his sphere of power. Now, forbidden to change the words of the Qur’an, Muslims can change only its meaning. So it will be on this very point that they will be taken to task.
From http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_mercy.htm "Why don't Muslims adapt the Quran to the needs of the modern age? aFrequent Questions About Islam And Religion; ...). Haddad then quotes Q. 10:64 to prove his assertion: 1 Those who believe and guarded (against evil): They shall have good news in this world's life and in the hereafter; there is no changing the words of Allah; that is the mighty achievement. Sura Yunus (10) verses 63/64 ...). In fact, other passages of the Quran directly connect Allah’s claim that there is no changing his words with his books, especially the Quran: Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. S. 6:114-115. And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him. S. 18:27. The contexts of both texts deal with the written scriptures, linking the unalterable nature of Allah’s words with his revealed books. Allah is basically claiming that his written words cannot be changed. Here is how renowned Sunni exegete Ibn Kathir interpreted Q. 18:27: The Command to recite the Qur’an and to patiently keep Company with the Believers. Commanding his Messenger to recite his Holy Book and convey it to mankind, Allah says, <None can change His Words,> ... meaning no one can alter them, distort them or misinterpret them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, (Abridged) (Surat Al-Isra’, verse 39 To the end of Surat Al-Mu’minun), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition, July 2000], Volume 6, p. 142; ...). A commentary attributed to Ibn Abbas explains Q. 6:115 this way: (Perfected is the Word of thy Lord) the Qur’an, detailing the commands and prohibitions (in truth) in His speech (and justice) from Him. (There is naught that can change His words) the Qur'an; it is also said that this means: the Word of your Lord has prescribed that His friends shall triumph. He is truthful in His speech and just in that which shall come. Nothing can change His words about His giving help to His friend. It is also said that this means: the religion of your Lord is now manifest, people truthfully believe that it is Allah’s religion. Allah’s command is just and nothing will ever change His religion. (He is the Hearer) of their speech, (the Knower) of them and their works. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; ...). Another Muslim source states: Described in the second verse (115), there are two more distinctive qualities of the Holy Qur’an sufficient to prove its being the Divine Word. It is said … (And the Word of your Lord is perfect in truth and justice. None is there to change His Word) … The sixth quality has been identified as … that is, there is no one who can change the words of Allah Ta’ala. One form in which such a change can take place is when someone proves a mistake in it because of which it has been changed; or, that some enemy changes it forcibly. The Word of Allah is pristinely pure and far beyond any such possibilities. He has Himself promised … that is, ‘We (only We) have revealed the Dhikr (the Qur’an) and, for it, We (only We) are the Protector’ – 15:9). When so, who can dare break through the protection of Allah and make any changes or alterations in it? For that matter, over fourteen hundred years have passed and there have been against it as compared in numbers, even in power, with those who have been believing it, but not one of them had the courage to introduce one tiny variance in even a vowel point of the Qur’an (1683 AD note: this is a blatant lie, as other text in this post reveals). Of course, possible there was a third form of bringing in a change, that is, it be changed through abrogation (naskh)[sic] by Allah Ta’ala Himself. Therefore, Sayyidna ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘This verse indicates that the noble Prophet is the Last Prophet and the Qur’an, the Last Book. After this, there is no probability of an abrogation’- as it has been elucidated in other verses of the Qur’an. (Mufti Shafi’ Uthmani, Maariful Qur’an, Volume 3, pp. 444, 446-447; ...). Apart from the purely wishful thinking on the part of the above writer that no one has introduced any changes or variations into the Quran, which is contrary to the established facts, he clearly sees how this specific text is referring to the unchanging nature of God’s inspired books. Yet he also sees the dilemma of Allah abrogating or changing the verses of the Quran, which happens to be mentioned in the Quran itself: And for whatever verse we abrogate and cast into oblivion We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything? S. 2:106. And when We exchange a verse in place of another verse -- and God knows very well what He is sending down -- they say, 'Thou art a mere forger!' Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge. S. 16:101. The foregoing introduces additional problems for Zawadi. How can Allah change or replace verses that are supposed to be unalterable? How can Allah erase eternal commandments if, as Muslims erroneously believe (*), the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah? And doesn’t this again prove that Allah does change and is in fact a deceiver who cannot be trusted since he claims that his words never change but then goes ahead and alters them, thereby changing his mind? Interestingly, some Muslims used Q. 18:27 as a basis to reject the doctrine of abrogation! The late Muhammad Asad referred to another outstanding Muslim commentator ar-Razi who said: … According to Razi, it is on this passage, among others, that the great Qur’an-commentator Abu Muslim al-Isfahani based his rejection of the so-called ‘doctrine of abrogation’ discussed in my note 87 on 2:106. (Asad, Message of the Qur’an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 443, fn. 35; ...) This Muslim clearly saw the dilemma that abrogation places Allah in! In conclusion we must say that Zawadi has done nothing to disprove that Allah is not perfect. In fact, some of his points helped to prove that his god is indeed imperfect and unreliable.
_______________________________________________________
Translations of the Qur'an not eligible for the title of being "Allah's Word"
_______________________________________________________
Translations of the written Qur'an / Mushaf are not deemed by Islamic Supremacists to be authentic. When a written translation of the Qur'an / Mushaf is spoken of in a general manner, we have traditionally seen as referring to a presentation which enables a person who cannot read Arabic to attain a grasp of the Qur'an's meaning in their own language (i.e., English, Spanish, etc.). We submit that the term "translation" should not simply refer to the use of a different language. It should also incorporate, when speaking of Arabic, the application of aids (diacritical points, dialects, modern script, etc.) which have enabled the drastically transformed the Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf and allowed it to be fully comprehended by a person who only converses in Modern Arabic. The following link ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/translate ) supports our claim in that it clearly indicates that the term "translation" does not apply solely to a different language as it is generally understood; it works within a language among its different stages of development. As a comparison, it seems reasonable to assert that the average current speaker of English would need a "translation" of Old English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English to understand what was written. The preceding link testifies to such a need.
Our side needs to further research the Islamic angle on "translation". Should the historic definition within Islam and or Islamic linguists concur with what we have just described as the proper use for the word "translation" (i.e., including situations and circumstances within the same language, such as Modern Arabic and Ancient Arabic [Kufic, Quarysh, Hijazi]), then we would have further information which we can apply in our argument against any post-934 AD written Qur'an / Mushaf. They would have to admit that the 934 AD (or perhaps earlier) changes of different types created a written Qur'an / Mushaf which was not authentic when compared to the Uthman written Qur'an / Mushaf, since it essentially effected a "translation" to a more modern tongue.
From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070109111033AAp5QmT : "What is important to realize is that the translations, more correctly know as the Intrepretations of the Qu'ran in English can no longer hold the title that which the Qu'ran holds. Which is 'God's Word'. ... Any translation of the Qur.aan no longer retains that 'official' and perfect status, however it can be tremendously helpful to beginning students wanting to learn more about Islaam". Also: "There is no reason whatsoever that forbids the translation of the "meanings", I repeat "meanings" of the Quran in any language you please. It's just forbidden to worship god by the "translated" version of the Quran, as it is subject to human interpretation and error. The authentic arabic version is the only version that can be recited during prayers, and during worship. So you can read any translation to help you understand what the Quran is about, but you'll have to memorise the least that will help you pray in arabic language".
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The eventual adding of vowels, diacritical marks and other changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. The eventual use of the printing press. A change in one's relationship with the written Qur'an / Mushaf.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is where all of the preceding comes to a head: the presentation of evidence of obvious additions and changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf; behavior which Islamic law, as mentioned previously, would SEEM to expressly prohibit. The post-Uthman changes, to be elaborated upon below, are an established historical fact, easily seen in black and white and readily confirmable through casual research on the internet. This does not involve any endless battle of interpretations. As you will recall, the original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf, bearing specific characteristics, was hailed by all, including the remaining Companions of Mohammed, at the time it was prepared in approximately 650 AD. No Islamic Supremacist will dare impune its position as the written "Word of Allah" or otherwise minimize its importance to their beliefs. Even though they may claim that the true Qur'an resides in the "chests" of the believers and has been kept alive through recitation from generation to generation, they will agree that the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf is supposed to be afforded great respect and honor.
One aspect of their showing respect to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf was supposed to be in vehemently fighting against any attempted additions, deletions or changes to it, no matter how small or "insignificant" they may appear. They claim great success in their protective efforts by pointing to what they "say" is a fact that there have been no changes to the Qur'an / Mushaf since Uthman. However, as alluded to in prior text and discussed below, there seems to be considerable evidence that significant and obvious changes of certain types to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf have indeed been adopted; usually (as it appears) out of the interest of convenience and nothing more. We are not saying that there were any changes in "meaning" or the addition / deletion of verses (even though many claim that there were such changes). Instead, the changes we are concerned with are more "structure" oriented.
Primary among the eventual changes to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf were the addition of diacritical points, vowels and similar textual aids. These made the text easier to understand and eliminated a lot of confusion. Without these specific devices, the text would be almost impossible to read by a person who had not already memorized the Qur'an. It should also be pointed out that the text eventually received formal indications for the end of verses, along with headings and numbering. Right from the start we can see in these measures a concession to convenience. Research reveals that some of these alterations were evident in specific written Qur'ans / Mushafs within a few decades after the approved written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf.
The so-called "official" approval for most of the changes along these lines was not granted until around 934 AD, under Ibn Majahid. It is with Ibn Majahid and his associates that we take issue. Islamic Supremacists may assert that since these individuals had some esteemed scholastic abilities and their judgments were sound (in their opinion), that was sufficient to justify the changes. Yet they fail to realize that in taking such a position they open the door to some other group or individual making changes of their own and pointing to the same reasons for attaining acceptance. The broad degree of acceptance by Islamic Supremacists of the 934 AD changes does not negate the fact that Ibn Majahid and his associates took the original written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf, with all its approval by Islam's early founders, and blatantly changed it. Case closed. They had no way of stating with 100% confidence that Uthman would have approved of their act. It should be noted that the time between the Uthman Qur'an (650 AD) and the finalized version which we have today (created in 934 AD) is called the Period of Ikhtiyar (or "choice").
We will also find that the original script, dialect and /or language, lilely Kufic / Quraysh / Hijazi, as written in 650 AD is either no longer used or is far behind the language as it evolved over the centuries. If the exact, original script, dialect or language as used by Uthman is not being used today, then a change along these lines has indeed taken place. We feel certain that at least Hijazi is no longer in use. We cannot give any specific dates for changes in script, dialect and/or language, but we are reasonably confident that some took place within the first few centuries of Islam. Research by others should clarify our understanding in this area.
Now we move onto how the Qur'an / Mushaf is actually created. We see that when one acquires a Qur'an / Mushaf today, it will likely be the product of a printing press and is not handwritten. The Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf was handwritten, as this is what was mandated by Uthman and the other early leaders. If they wanted it to be printed, Allah would have said so. Even when printing became available many centuries later, religious justifications had been found for a long time to prohibit use in its producing Qur'ans / Mushaf; mainly out of concerns regarding respect. We should ponder on this. Apparently, the religious authorities in the early post-printing press era, with all of their expertise and knowledge, discerned a universal truth from the Qur'an / Mushaf or other Islamic texts which lead them to conclude that printing would be disrespectful of the Qur'an / Mushaf. They made such a decision even in the face of knowledge that the printing press would facilitate a greater spread of Islam. These specific scholars held firm to their convictions. Most of us would agree that if we have the acknowledgement of a universal truth at one point in time, it would be applicable in all later time periods without exception. This is apparently not the case with Islamic Supremacists. Somehow, many years later, the apparently explicit and clear prohibitions against printing were found to be in "error" and printing was then allowed. It sounds like convenience to us. This area is obviously calling for further research. At this point we could at least appeal to the early prohibitions as evidence that current printing of the Qur'an / Mushaf (along with electronic applications) violate the sanctity of the text.
We have seen that the use of mass produced written (actually printed) Qur'ans / Mushafs with all of the above mentioned clarifying and assistive tools which had been added over the centuries has become the prominent component in teaching recitation. In other words, students now memorize the Qur'an through reading instead of through the direct, one-on-one verbal exchanges which would appear to have been dominant in Islam's early years. Since recitation is supposed to be at the heart of Islam, we might be able to conclude that reading the modern written Qur'an / Mushaf (which we believe is invalid) with the intent of recitation violates a core tenent of Islam. Naturally, this point needs clarification.
Related to the preceding, it seems that prior to at least 934 AD, the authority of a Qur'an reciter and the authority of his oral transmission were mandatory compliments to the written Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf. Since we now have Qur'ans / Mushafs which anyone can read on their own, it suggests a change in this relationship Should this assumption of a major change in the relationship of reciter, transmitter and Qur'an / Mushaf in 934 AD be confirmed, it might be worthwhile to highlight this point. We essentially have the emphasis being moved from recitation to reading, which seems to violate the "spirit" of Islam.
Apparently, all of the proclaimed prohibitions against change have, throughout history, either been forgotten, ignored, exempted, excused or explained away in each instance. If we were to press Islamic Supremacists on the reality of these changes in a public venue and emphasize that these changes are a matter of historical reality and not a difference in opinion on the meaning of various verses, then there might be a chance of making headway. From the perspective of 1683 AD, it is hard to see how they can keep a straight face before the general public and deny these realities and the prohibitions against changes.
The facts are simple: Uthman and the early leaders of Islam ordained a precise rendition of the Qur'an / Mushaf as being authoritative and official. If they, the ones who actually knew Mohammed directly perceived it was Allah's intent to include all of the later-placed additions and modes of creation (printing, internet, etc.), they would have been compelled to include them. New "revealations" were impossible, as Mohammed apparently took care of that. Obviously, those in later years did not have such an understanding. As time progressed, individuals arbitrarily decided to make changes and violate both the commands of the Qur'an and the final decision made by Uthman and Mohammed's Companions. They neglected to realize that after Uthman, who at one time was the only person who had access to all source documentation (which he eventually destroyed) and input from the Companions of Mohammed, no one else had the true credibility or resources on hand to "authorize" any changes.
We anticipate that Islamic Supremacists will proffer some type of "authoritative" justification for these changes. Since they realize they cannot get away with acknowledging "changes", which are forbidden, they will likely use other terminology, such as "aids" or "clarifiers". They will claim the "measures" corresponded with Uthman's "intent". But when brought back to the reality that Uthman and the early leaders authorized only one, specific, precise written Qur'an / Mushaf, they will not be able to deny that a current Qur'an / Mushaf will not correspond with it.
Later text will address how we can apply these findings.
From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter3.html : "By the time of the caliph abd al malik ÿAbd-al-Malik (685-705) the inadequacy of the existing script was clear to leading Muslims and improvements began to be made. The problem of the incorrect copying of the defective script had also to be dealt with. The traditional accounts of the passage to the scriptio plena do not tally with one another, nor with the findings of palaeography. It is virtually certain that the scriptio plena did not come into existence all at once, but only gradually by a series of experimental changes. One of the more probable traditional accounts ascribes the introduction of diacritical marks and vowel points to the initiative of hajjaj al-Øajjåj, probably during his governorship of Iraq (694-714). The actual work is said to have been done by scribes such as Nasr asim ibn-ÿÅãim (d. 707) and yahya Yaøyå yamur ibn-Yaÿmur (d.746). It is hardly possible that the scriptio plena should have been introduced all at once by abu aswad Abõ-l-Aswad ad duali ad-Duÿalæ (d. 688), as is sometimes suggested. Existing copies of the quran QurŸån illustrate different methods of obviating deficiencies of the script; e.g. dots of different colours for the vowels instead of the signs now in current use. The chief matters to be dealt with were: (a) distinguishing between consonants with a similar shape; (b) the marking of long vowels, which eventually was mostly done by adding the consonants ahif waw, ya yåŸ; (c) the marking of short vowels; (d) certain other matters such as the doubling of consonants and the absence of a vowel after a consonant. The process of improving the script was completed towards the end of the ninth century. It now became possible to enforce a greater measure of uniformity than was conceivable with the original script. It is not surprising, then, to find in the early tenth century a series of moves to ensure a measure of uniformity. These are chiefly associated with the name of mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid (859-935). 13 He was not, of course, the first to concern himself with securing uniformity in the text. Malik ibn-Anas (d. 795), the great scholar of Medina and founder of the Malikite legal rite, had explicitly stated that the performance of the worship behind someone who used the readings of masud Ibn-Masÿõd was invalid. 14 The more precise script, however, enabled mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid to make more exact regulations. As a result of his studies he wrote a book entitled 'The Seven Readings' (qiraat Al-qiråŸåt saba as-sabÿa). He based himself on a Tradition to the effect that muhammad Muøammad had been taught to recite the quran QurŸån according to seven ahruf aøruf, interpreted to mean seven sets of readings', though ahruf aøruf is the plural of harf øarf which is properly 'letter'. 15 His conclusion was that the set of readings of each of seven scholars of the eighth century was equally valid, but that these seven sets alone were authentic. The conclusions of the scholar were made effective by the action of the courts. In 934 a scholar called Ibn-Miqsam 16 was forced to renounce the view that one was entitled to choose any reading of the consonantal outline that was in accordance with grammar and gave a reasonable sense. This decision was tantamount to an insistence that only the seven sets of readings were valid. In April 935 (about four months before the death of ibn mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid) another scholar, ibn shannabudh Ibn-Shannabõdh, was similarly condemned and forced to retract his view that it was permissible to make use of the readings of masud Ibn-Masÿõd and Ubayy kab ibn-Kaÿb. Up to this time some scholars had apparently been in the habit of making some use of these readings in commenting on and elucidating the quran QurŸån. The readings of ali ÿAli ibn abi talib ibn-Abæ-Þålib were also rejected by mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid. The seven sets of readings accepted by mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid represented the systems prevailing in different districts. There was one each from Medina, Mecca, Damascus and Basra, and three from Kufa. For each set of readings (qiraa qirå'a), there were two slightly different 'versions' (sing. riwaya riwåya). ... While ibn mujahid Ibn-Mujåhid's system of seven readings came after a time to be generally accepted in theory, only one of the fourteen versions, that of hafs Øafã from asim ÿÅãim, is now widely used in practice. The new standard Egyptian edition reproduces this version and thus gives it a certain canonical supremacy. The restriction to seven readers was not immediately approved by all Muslim scholars. Some spoke of ten readers (with two versions each), while others had fourteen, though with only one version of at least the last four.
From http://www.bibleprobe.com/corruptedquran.htm: "It is not without interest, that records show that the Qur'anic text was finally fixed by the two visirs ibn Muqlah and ibn-'Tsa in A.D. 933 (A.H. 311) with the help of the learned ibn Mujahid. Ibn Majahid admitted seven readings, which had developed because of lack of vowel and diacritical marks, as canonical." ("History of the Arabs" by Philip K. Hitti, page 123 as quoted from "Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran" by Arthur Jeffery and "New Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Koran" by Hartwig Hirschfeld).
From http://exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Quran: "Uthman's version was written in an older Arabic script that left out most vowel markings; thus the script could be interpreted and read in various ways. This basic Uthmanic script is called the rasm; it is the basis of several traditions of oral recitation, differing in minor points. In order to fix these oral recitations and prevent any mistakes, scribes and scholars began annotating the Uthmanic rasm with various diacritical marks -- dots and the like -- indicating how the word was to be pronounced. It is believed that this process of annotation began around 700 CE, soon after Uthman's compilation, and finished by approximately 900 CE".
From http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Collection-of-Quran-3.htm : "The Role of Ibn Mujahid (d. 936). This great scholar based in Baghdad canonized the Arabic language with one system of consonants and placing a limit on the vowel variations [this was a problem of astronomical proportions toward understanding the Qur’anic text. The reader is advised to read the second part of this study to understand the involved complexities]. With this canonization, seven Qur’anic systems were accepted. However, other scholars accepted ten reading, and others fourteen. Ibn Mujahid’s seven allowed, though, fourteen possible readings because each of the seven readings was traced through two transmitters. Here they are: (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 Dhakwan; (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. At the present time, two versions seem to be in use. Asim of Kufa through Hafs was adopted by the Egyptian edition of 1924. Nafi of Medina through Warsh is used in parts of Africa, other than Egypt.. It is important to note here that those varied readings of the Qur’an refer to actual differences in the written and oral text. They are different “Qur’ans”, so to speak. Charles Adams notes that those seven versions refer to actual written and oral text, to distinct versions of Qur’anic verses, whose differences, though they may not be great, are nonetheless substantial. Since the very existence of variant readings and versions of the Qur’an 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. .... So, in a sense, we do have many Qur’ans nowadays, literally. I hope that this matter has been proven in this three part study. I have no doubt that an honest reader who will read the three published parts of this research will reach this very same conclusion".
From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html: "Uthman succeeded in standardising a single written text of the quran QurŸan but, as the pronunciation of words and clauses was not reflected in the earliest manuscripts, the quran QurŸan was still read in different ways. No vocalisation of the written text existed at that time and so the script (as much of written Arabic does today) was transcribed with consonants only. Vowel points were only added much later. At the same time a tradition had been recorded that the Prophet himself had stated that the quran QurŸan was in fact sent down with more than one form of recitation: 'The quran QurŸan has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you'. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.510). This statement concludes an incident where Umar one day heard Hisham ibn Hakim reciting Suratul-Furqan in a way very different to that which he had learnt it. In his typical impulsiveness he intended to spring upon him but controlled himself until Hikam had finished his reading. Umar immediately confronted him with being a liar when he claimed that he had learned his recitation directly from Muhammad himself. When they approached the Prophet for a decision he confirmed both their readings, adding the above statement that the quran QurŸan had been revealed alaa sabati sabÿati ahruf, 'in seven readings'". Also: "The Period of Ikhtiyar. Until Ibn Mujahid (section heading). For the next three centuries after Uthman there were considerable differences in the recitation of the quran QurŸan as a result of his inability to eliminate the dialectal variants, but the differences were confined to these alone. This was a time of ikhtiyar, a period of 'choice' when Muslims were free to read the quran QurŸan in whichever dialect they chose on the strength of the tradition that there were seven legitimate ways in which the quran QurŸan could be recited. During this period until the year 322 AH (934 AD), all scholars of the quran QurŸan agreed that such recitations were valid although no one could define exactly what the seven readings were. They would be at the discretion of anyone who attempted to specify them. In that year, however, the well-known authority on the quran QurŸan at Baghdad, Ibn Mujahid, took it upon himself to resolve the issue. He had considerable influence with Ibn `Isa and Ibn Muqlah, two of the wazirs (ministers) in the Abassid government of the day. Through them he managed to establish an official limitation on the permissible readings of the quran QurŸan. He wrote a book titled al qiraat Al-Qiraÿat sabah as-Sabÿah ("The Seven Recitations") and in it he established seven of the readings current in the Muslim world as canonical and declared the others shadhdh ("isolated") and no longer legitimate. He gave no source of authority for his decision and it appears it was entirely his own discretion which guided him. The seven readings now authorised were those of Nafi (Medina), Ibn Kathir (Mecca), Ibn `Amir (Damascus), Abu `Amr (Basrah), Asim, Hamzah and al-Kisai (Kufa). In each case there were certain recognised transmitters who had executed a recension (riwayah) of their own of each reading and two of these, those of Warsh (who revised Nafi's reading) and Hafs (who revised asims Asim's) eventually gained the ascendancy as the others generally fell into disuse. Warsh's riwayah has long been used in the Maghrib (the western part of Africa under Muslim rule, namely Morocco, Algeria, etc) mainly because it was closely associated with the Maliki school of law but it is the riwayah of Hafs that has gradually gained almost universal currency in the Muslim world. This has particularly been so since the printing of the quran QurŸan became commonplace. Ibn Mujahid's determination to canonise only seven of the readings current in the Muslim world of his day was upheld by the Abbasid judiciary. Very soon after his decree a scholar named Ibn Miqsam was publicly forced to renounce the widely-held opinion that any reading of the basic consonantal outline was acceptable as long as it contained good Arabic grammar and made good sense. The period of ikhtiyar duly closed with Ibn Mujahid's action. He did to the vocalised reading of the quran QurŸan what `Uthman had done to the consonantal text many centuries earlier. Just as the Caliph had destroyed the different codices so this scholar outlawed all dialectal readings in use except seven. So likewise, just as the text standardised by `Uthman cannot be regarded as a perfect copy of the quran QurŸan exactly as it was delivered by Muhammad because it only standardised the text of one redactor at the Caliph's personal discretion, so the seven readings canonised by Ibn Mujahid cannot be accepted as an exact reflection of the sabat i ahruf sabÿat-i-ahruf as they were likewise arbitrarily chosen by the redactor according to his own preference and judgment. (1683 AD note: one would think that the denial of Uthman's Qur'an / Mushaf as being perfect would be heretical). It is obvious that no one with any real authority can say precisely what the seven different readings referred to in the Hadith actually were. A very good example of the confusion caused in subsequent generations about these readings is found in the following quote attributed to Abu al-Khair ibn al-Jazari prior to Ibn Mujahid's declarations: 'Every reading in accordance with Arabic, even if only remotely, and in accordance with one of the `Uthmanic codices, and even if only probable but with an acceptable chain of authorities, is an authentic reading which may not be disregarded, nor may it be denied, but it belongs to al ahruful sabat al-ahruful-sabÿat (the seven readings) in which the quran QurŸan was sent down, and it is obligatory upon the people to accept it, irrespective of whether it is from the seven Imams, or from the ten, or yet other approved imams, but when it is not fully supported by these three (conditions), it is to be rejected as dhaifah dhaÿifah (weak) or shaathah (isolated) or baatilah (false), whether it derives from the seven or from one who is older than them' (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii `Ulum quran al-QurŸan, p.176). This statement shows how impossible it was to define the seven different readings. Any good reading was automatically considered to be one of them, not because it could be proved to belong to them, but because of other factors-its isnad (chain of authorities), its consistency with the `Uthmanic consonantal text, and its compliance with proper Arabic grammar (1683 AD note: This indicates that the lone, original Uthman Quran / Mushaf can accomodate multiple readings). . The decision rested purely on matters of discretion.bbContrary to the oft-stated Muslim sentiment that the quran QurŸan as it stands today is an exact replica of the one said to be inscribed on the Preserved Tablet in heaven, it is obvious that the book went through a long period in which distinctions in both the actual text and thereafter in dialectal reading were eliminated in the interests of obtaining a single text. The quran QurŸan became standardised into the form in which it is found today, mainly through the actions of `Uthman and Ibn Mujahid respectively but also through other means such as the gradual lapse of most of the readings accepted by the latter scholar. The book only contains a uniform, defined text because certain Muslims of earlier times made it their express purpose to reduce it to a single text upon which the whole Muslim world could be united. The evidences show, however, that whole passages are now missing from certain surahs, that considerable numbers of variant readings existed in the original codices, and that a host of different dialectal readings survived until some three centuries later until these were reduced to seven. (1683 AD note: This is saying that the Uthman effort to push one reading with the Uthman Qur'an / Mushaf had failed). Only the printing of the quran QurŸan has finally given the Muslim world a single, unvaried text. There can be little doubt that the quran QurŸan has generally survived intact and that its present text is a relatively authentic reproduction of the book as it was originally delivered. There is no justification, however, for the Muslim dogma that nothing in it, to the last dot or letter, has ever been changed or amended, or that any portion of it has since been lost or omitted. Also: " It was generally assumed, as it is today, that the Arabic language was so familiar to its speakers that vowelling of the text was not necessary. A number of consonants were not distinguished from one another either so that only seventeen were employed in the very early texts. As time passed, however, the similar consonants were separated by diacritical points above or below the letters and vowelling soon followed to clearly identify the reading of each text. Today almost without exception printed quran QurŸans are fully vocalised".
From: http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm : "The introduction of diacritical marks to the verses of the Qur'an. It was in the first centuries of Islam the diacritical marks upon the consonants were placed. Prior to that the authority of the Qurra (singular Qari, the authoritative reciter of the Qur'an) and the authority of the oral transmissions were the indispensable and essential compliments to the text that had been circulated by 'Uthman in 650. Here is an excerpt from The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse: 'As Islam became diffused among peoples whose Arabic fell far short of the Quraysh standard, or for whom Arabic was not even a mother tongue, it became a matter of urgency to remedy the deficiencies of the script, formalize grammar and preserve the integrity of the revealed text and of Arabic, the sacred language. The rapid vulgarization of Arabic that ensued in the first centuries of Islam when the language, no longer protected by its isolation, became the lingua franca of a vast realm, was a phenomenon noted and deplored by the scholars of the age'". Also: "Before we go to SITE #2 there is one other related issue: The Change of Dialects; that mean.. The Change of Pronunciations; that means.. The Additions &/or Deletions of Vowels within Words.. BUT NO CHANGE IN THE MEANING OF THE TEXT...In their desperation, the Critics have cited examples of such variations in the Arabic words as the "textual variations" in the Qur'an. For the readers who do not know the language these may appear as the textual variations, but they are not. Here is a good example from their Bible. In 'Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity', appears an illustration of the Cover from the *Byble* published during the reign of King Henry VIII. The King had repudiated the authority of Pope and published this first English Byble. Here in this sixteenth century publication one would see the words: "Bible" written as "Byble"; "Hebrew" as "Hebrue"; "Greek" as "Grcke"; "texts" as "textes" and the phrase "Old and New Testament" as "Olde and Newe Testament" and so forth and so on. Obviously, the Christians of the sixteenth century must be READING the biblical texts from their copies of the "Byble" differently from what the Christians of this era are reading. Can the present mode of "spelling" and the "style of reading" of the Holy Bible be alleged as the "textual variants" in the biblical text from that of the 16th century?
From http://www.islam4all.com/new_page_32.htm we have: "The millions copies of Qur'an in circulation amongst the Muslims these days are exact copies of the original Uthmani Mus'haf. The only differences are in the spelling of some words and the way they are written, which in no way change the meanings of the verses. (NOTE by 1683 AD: How can something be exactly the same yet have differences? Is this logical?) This stands as a clear attestation to the authenticity of the Holy Qur'an and its preservation for more than 1400 years since its revelation to Prophet Muhammad. The Qur'an is the only Holy Script that survived without changes, additions, or deletions".
From: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4a "Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters that were in some words looked the same".
From http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm#history : "To start our investigation we turn to an Islamic Encyclopedia written by a practicing Muslim. This scholar explains an important aspect of the history of the Qur'an. Please read this quote a few times if you are new to this area of study. -- '(C)ertain variant readings (of the Qur'an) existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate (basic) Arabic script, lacking vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate. ... In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are: Nafi` (from Medina; d. 169/785); Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d. 119/737)' Abu `Amr al-`Ala' (from Damascus; d. 153/770); Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d. 118/736); Hamzah (from Kufah; d. 156/772); al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d. 189/804); Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d. 158/778); (Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 324, bold added)'. ... Therefore, we need to realise that the Qur'an has been passed down to us from men called "the Readers". They were famous reciters of the Qur'an in the early centuries of Islam. The way these men recited the Qur'an was formerly recorded in textual form by other men called the "Transmitters". ... What the above means is that the Qur'an has come to us through many transmitted versions. You cannot recite or read the Qur'an except through one of these versions. Each version has its own chain of narrators (isnad) like a hadith. There are more versions than those listed above but they are not considered authentic because their chain of narration is considered weak. Not all of these versions are printed or used today, but several are. ... To make things simple we will now compare two Qur'ans from different parts of the world to see if they are identical. The Qur'an on the left (not shown) is now the most commonly used Qur'an and is according to Imam Hafs' transmitted version. The Qur'an on the right (not shown) is according to Imam Warsh's transmitted version and is mainly used in North Africa. When you compare these Qur'ans it becomes obvious that they are not identical. There are four main types of differences between them. (1) Graphical/Basic Letter Differences; (2) Diacritical Differences; Vowel Differences; Basmalah Difference". ... Diacritical Differences: Arabic uses dots to distinguish certain letters that are written the same way. For instance the basic symbol(not shown) represents five different letters in Arabic depending upon where the diacritical dots are placed: baa', taa', thaa', nuun, yaa'. Here we see (not shown) another difference between these two Qur'ans for they do not have the dots in the same place. The result is that different letters are formed. ... Vowel Differences" Arabic uses small symbols above and below the letters to indicate some of the vowels of a word. Here we see another difference between these two Qur'ans for they do not have the same vowels in the same place.... The extent to which the differences affect the meaning. I am often told by Muslims that the differences between these Qur'ans are only a matter of dialect, accent or pronunciation, and that they do not have any effect on the meaning at all. However this is clearly not the case. The examples of the differences given earlier show that the differences are far more than dialect, accent or pronunciation. The differences change the subject of the sentence, whether the verb is active or passive or whether it is singular or plural. These differences do affect the meaning. ,,, We began this article by considering the following claim made by a Muslim leader about the Qur'an. 'No other book in the world can match the Qur'an ... The astonishing fact about this book of ALLAH is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years. ... No variation of text can be found in it. You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of Muslims from different parts of the world'. (Basic Principles of Islam, p. 4) This claim is wrong. All of the Islamic evidence shows that there are different versions of the Qur'an used around the world today. They are different in their basic letters, diacritical dots and vowels, and this changes the meaning of words and sentences. The different Qur'ans also have a different understanding of the Basmalah, some accepting it as part of the Qur'an while others not. Therefore how the Qur'an is recited around the world today is different".
From http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/139040 : "You claim the Koran in your hands to be a book that is an exact copy of the one preserved in heaven, (as written down on leather, bones etc during the prophet's time which had no diacritical marks). But you accept that the diacritical marks were put in later so what you have now is not the one that Abu Bakr or Othman had. Simple logic. If the problem was with the Arabic language Allah could have revealed it in some other language. Allah could have accelerated the process of improvement of the Arabic script or waited till the Arabs themselves did it to reveal the Koran if the one in heaven has those marks".
From http://www.uga.edu/islam/quran.html : "On the contrary, it is a historical fact, accepted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that the writing of the text (but not the text itself) of the Qur'an has substantially evolved. One such major evolutionary difference is that originally the text was written without diacritical points--which distinguish some letters from others-- but early in the history of the writing of Qur'an, diacritical points were added. The upshot of this is the vast majority of Muslims rest assured that they are reading the exact words of revelation received by Muhammad (even though the manner of writing those words has indeed changed over time). Since Muslims believe that words themselves are those revealed by God, the act of reciting or reading the Qur'an is believed to be a means of receiving blessings (baraka) from God. Hence it is not uncommon that Muslims will learn how to read Arabic and the Qur'an without understanding it".
From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html : " It took time for the quran QurŸan to become a single text and, as shall be seen, a second redaction was necessary some centuries later to standardise the vocalised text as well. One thing is quite obvious from all these readings, however-there is no foundation for the Muslim claim that the quran QurŸan presently read in the Muslim world is an exact copy of the original text at the time of Muhammad". Also: "`Uthman succeeded in standardising a single written text of the quran QurŸan but, as the pronunciation of words and clauses was not reflected in the earliest manuscripts, the quran QurŸan was still read in different ways. No vocalisation of the written text existed at that time and so the script (as much of written Arabic does today) was transcribed with consonants only. Vowel points were only added much later. At the same time a tradition had been recorded that the Prophet himself had stated that the quran QurŸan was in fact sent down with more than one form of recitation: The quran QurŸan has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.510)".
From http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103 : Like other early Arabic literature, the Sa'na Koran was written without any diacritical marks, vowel symbols or any guide to how it should be read, says Puin. "The text was written so defectively that it can be read in a perfect way only if you have a strong oral tradition." The Sa'na text, just like other early Korans, was a guide to those who knew it already by memory, he says. Those that were unfamiliar with the Koran would read it differently because there were no diacritical and vowel symbols. As years went by, the correct reading of the Koran became less clear, he says. People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs [first letter of the Arabic alphabet] in the Koranic text". Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees. "Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". After Hajjaj's changes in around the 700s, "the Koranic text became pretty stable", he says.
Froom http://www.solhaam.org/articles/islam02.html: "Arabic Grammar. Initially there was no Arabic grammar, that is recorded and accepted grammatical rules. About the year 780 the 'grammar of written arabic was established by the Persian Sibawayh.' <2> {4}So we have: Year 780 (Grammer of written arabic established, about 150 years after the death of Mohammed. 800 (From about this time onwards, the Arabic language began to differ in some respects from that of the Koran, making misunderstandings and conflicting readings more likely, and causing them. ... Diacritical and Vowel Points. What took place has been researched in considerable detail by Gilchrist {3} who records that 'It was only in the later generations that vowel marks above and below the letters were introduced to give an exact representation of the vocal text. Diacritical points were then also added above and below the relevant consonants to distinguish between them. At the same time long vowels were also distinguished where appropriate from short vowels by the use of the three weak letters (alif, wa and ya) which were otherwise considered to be actual consonants and not vowels. Also introduced in time was the marking of the hamzah. These modifications were gradually applied to the whole text and all helped to define the actual text of the Koran more accurately. {3} The date of the final fixing of the Koran's text ('reading'), that is of the final introduction of vowel and diacritical points, is not known, and Luxenberg concludes that the process of fixing the text of the Koran took about three hundred years, that is to the end of the 'period of free choice' (ikhtiyar). {4}
From http://www.godrevelation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52 : "Changing The Original Quran? One of the biggest shocks that came to me was the fact that 200 years after Mohammad, the whole meaning of the Quran could have been lost. It was then that they changed the Arabic script which didn’t have the dots on the letters, to the modern script of today which does, as well as adding numbers to the verses. There are many letters in Arabic that are only different by the number of dots placed around them. For example lets take a look at four different Arabic letters, by removing the dots they will be one letter : (not shown) . Shockingly the Quran was preserved by memorization more than it was written. So it was very easy to add these dots without changing the meaning. I guarantee you that if the book was not memorized the whole meaning would have been lost.
From http://islamicislamic.com/quran_compilation.htm : "The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq. Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too. (1683 AD note: Then preserve the oral recitation within the oral transmission itself, don't change the text. Uthman concluded that the "recitation" would be best reprersented in the manner in which he had it written out in the written Qur'an / Mushaf).
From http://www.islamweb.net/kidsen/kids%20corner%201,2/subjects/ehsaeyat1.html : "The first one to place the dots on the letters of the Quran, was Abu Al-Aswad Ad-Dua'li, may Allaah be pleased with him. He made the Fathah sign (short vowel a) a dot above the letter, the Kasrah (short vowel i) a dot below, and the Dhammah (short vowel u) a dot between the parts of the letter. · The first one to replace the dots with diacritical marks was Al-Khaleel Ibn Ahmad Al-Faraahidi, may Allaah have mercy on him. The first people to dot the letters of the Quran (such as ...) were Nasr Ibn `Aasim, Yahya Ibn Ya`mur and `Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Hurmuz. This made it easy for the Arabs as well as the non-Arabs to recite the Quran. (1683 AD note: In other words, sanctity was over-ruled by demand for convenience)".
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2000/aug/08/highereducation.theguardian : "People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs [first letter of the Arabic alphabet] in the Koranic text". Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees. "Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". After Hajjaj's changes in around the 700s, "the Koranic text became pretty stable", he says.
From http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html: "Since diacritical marks were already fixed before the first half of the first century of hijra and the vowel marks invented a little later by Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali [d. 69 AH / 688 CE], it should not be surprising to see the Muslims towards the end of first century of hijra were already using the dotted manuscripts. Abu ‘Amr al-Dani narrates a couple of reports that shed some light into this matter. ... It was to us narrated that Ibn Sirin owned a mushaf that was dotted by Yahya Ibn Ya‘mur [d. 90 AH / 708 CE]. And that Yahya was the first one to dot them. The three of these people are among the eminent successors of Basra.[53]. Khalaf b. Ibrahim said: 'Ahmad al-Makki told me: Al-Qasim told me:‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi told me from Hammad b. Zayd; from Khalid al-Hadda': I used to follow a mushaf from Ibn Sirin [d. 110 AH / 728 CE] that was dotted'.[54] It should be added that every centre appears to have practiced a slightly different convention at first. For example, Ibn Ushta reports that the mushaf of Isma‘il al-Qust [100-170 AH / 718-786 CE], the imam of Makkah bore a dissimilar dotting scheme when compared with the ones used by the Iraqis.[55] The scholars of Sana‘a' followed yet another framework.[56] However, by the close of the first century, the Basran convention became so popular that even the Madinan scholars adopted it.[57] It is not surprising to see that some of the Quranic ,anudcripts from 1st/snd centuryof hijra show the evidence of a vowelling scheme adopted by Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali. The frequency of diacritic dots and vowels signs varies and alongside fully-vowelled manuscripts one can find texts in which even the diacritic dots are left out.
From http://zamanku-milis.blogspot.com/2007/07/zamanku-re-al-quran-isinya-lebih-bagus.html and http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv8.html "Then Dr. Ahmad alluded to those who invented the vocalization and diacritical points and applied them to the Qur’anic text many years after Muhammad’s death such as Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali, Nasr ibn ’Asim and al-Khalil ibn Ahmad. He also added (on the same page) that "without these diacritical points, a man would believe that verse 3 of the chapter, ‘The Repentance’, would mean that God is done with the idolaters and His apostle— free from obligation to the idolaters and His apostle—while the real meaning of the verse is that God and His apostle are done with the idolaters—free from further obligation to the idolaters. Now the question we would like to ask Dr. Ahmad and all those wise men: Why was not the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad in a perfect Arabic language complete with the literary indicators and the diacritical points lest a difference or change of meaning occur? If a student of Arabic writes an essay in Arabic without the diacritical points would the teacher give him more than zero? The answer is known to two hundred million Arabs. The second question is: Did God inspire those who added the diacritical points and the vocalization through an angel, for example, to eliminate the different meanings on which the scholars disagree? Who instructed Nasr ibn ’Asim, Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali and Khalil ibn Ahmad to undertake this serious task and create the diacritical points and the vocalization for the Qur’anic text? Was it not more appropriate that Muhammad himself or some of his successors or companions like ibn ’Abbas and ibn Mas’ud should accomplish this work? Yet al-Suyuti himself tells us that ibn Mas’ud was not pleased with that (refer to "Itqan", part 2, p. 160), nor were other leading companions and scholars such as ibn Sirin and the Nakha’i. 2) Ibn Timiyya, Sheik of the Muslims (vol. XII, p. 101), tells us, "The companions of Muhammad had never used the diacritical points or the vocalization for the Qur’an. For each word, there were two readings—either to use (for instance) ‘ya’ or ‘tah’ in such words as ‘they do’ or ‘you do’. The companion did not forbid one of the readings in favor of the other, then some successor of the companions began to use the diacritical points and vocalization for the Qur’an." On pp. 576 and 586, he adds, "The companions (Muhammad’s friends) did not vocalize or provide diacritical points for the letters of the Qur’anic copies which they wrote, but later during the last part of the companions’ era, when reading errors came into being, they began to provide diacritical points for the copies of the Qur’an and to vocalize them. This was admissible by the authority of the majority of the scholars, though some of them disliked it. The truth is, it should not be disliked because the situation necessitated it, and the diacritical points distinguish the letters from each other while vocalization explains the grammatical inflection." There is a candid acknowledgment from ibn Timiyya that diacritical points are required, but did not God and His angel Gabriel along with Muhammad and his successors know about this problem? The simplest principles of sound Arabic language demand that words should have diacritical points and their letters should be written in complete form. Didn’t they know that disagreements among Muslim scholars would take place and that they would fight among themselves and that even death would result from the differences in reading the Qur’anic text? Didn’t they know also that the differences in meaning of the Qur’anic vocabulary would be decisive in the interpretation and judgments of Islamic law? It is surprising that such things had not occurred to the mind of God, Gabriel, Muhammad, and the companions and the caliphs; then, three persons come later and insert these changes into the Qur’anic text. Yet, what is really more surprising is that when the companions discovered the differences in the readings of the Qur’anic text (as Ibn Timiyya says), they did not have any objection against any of the different readings and they did not prohibit either one. The justification for that was that Muhammad himself had acknowledged the presence of seven different readings, not just two readings as was clearly stated in the Sahih al-Bukhari, (vol. 6, p. 227). This fact is common knowledge among all the scholars. 3) Jalal-al-Din al-Suyuti. In his famous book, "al-Itqan Fi Ulum al-Qur’an" ("Adjusted Qur’anic Science"), al-Suyuti reiterates (part four, p. 160) the same words of ibn Timiyya which had been quoted by Dr. Ahmad Shalabi about those who invented the diacritical points and the vocalization of the words. He also said that some of the scholars detested that, as we mentioned before.
From http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/green.html#Vowel "Samuel Green says: ' ... owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority'. (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983, p.10, ...) He adds further that: 'VOWEL DIFFERENCES - In the Arabic script of the modern Qur'an the vowels are indicated by small symbols above or below the basic printed letters. Again these were not included in Uthman's edition of the Qur'an'. It is to be made clear that the Arabic script before and during the time of cUthmân was written without vowel and diacritical marks. To say that the vowels and diacritical marks were not included in the cUthmânic Qur'an actually shows the ignorance of the Christian missionary Samuel Green concerning the evolution of Arabic script. The need for vowel and diacritical marks arose only after the time of cUthmân to prevent the wrong recitation of the Qur'an by ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs. (1683 AD note: unless we are missing something, the immediately preceding two sentences seem to contradict each other). Arabic orthography at the time of cUthmân was not yet developed in the way we have known for centuries, particularly in two important areas. There was no distinction between letters of the alphabet of similar shape and there were no vowel marks. This may now give the impression that such a system must have given rise to great confusion in reading. This was not actually the case because the morphological patterns of words in Arabic enable readers to read even very unfamiliar material without the short vowels being marked. More important, however, as far as the Qur'an was concerned, was the fact that learning and reading relied above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid; nevertheless, to ensure correct reading of the written texts of the Qur'an, particularly for those coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were taken gradually to improve the orthography. This started with the two above mentioned areas by introducing dots to indicate different vowels and nûnâtion and these were put in different coloured ink from that of the text. There were also dots to distinguish between consonants of similar shape. This work was carried out chiefly by three men: Abû-l-Aswad al-Du'alî (d. 69 / 688), Nasr Ibn cAsim (d. 89 / 707) and Yahya Ibn Yacmur (d.129 /746). Understandably there was some opposition at first to adding anything to the way the Qur'an was written. Ibn cUmar (73/692) disliked the dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Qur'an as received from the Prophet(P), and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world, from the time of the tâbicûn. The people of Madinah were reported to have used red dots for vowels - tanwîn, tashdîd, takhfîf, sukûn, wasl and madd and yellow dots for the hamzas in particular. Naqt (placing dots on words in the mushaf), became a separate subject of study with many books written on it. For details please see the article Quranic Orthography: The Written representation of the Recited Text Of The Quran ( http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Scribal/haleem.html ) .Further, the conclusions of the missionary is that there was an '... ambiguity as to which vowels should be used. This ambiguity has lead to differences between the vowels in the different transmissions'. The aim of the Christian missionary here is to show that prior to the introduction of the vowel and diacritical marks, that is, throughout the period of the Prophet(P) and the Companions, as well as the generation immediately following the Qur'an was in undetermined, fluid state, a kind of limbo, and that it assumed concrete form only with the addition of diacritical marks and vocalization signs, which of course was long after the age of Revelation. In other words, for almost a century before Hijra the Qur'an was in the fluid state and as soon as the vowels and diacritical marks were introduced, the Qur'an started to crystallise in the form that we have now after going through many 'versions.' For such a situation there is no historical evidence. Neither, there is historical evidence that Muslims differed over the Qur'an unlike the Christians who differ over the extent of the canon even to this day. It must be emphasized that for Muslims down through the centuries the consensus (ijma') of the community has always been a decisive proof in all matters; and as the community is agreed that man has not contributed a whit to the Qur'an, (1683 AD note: WHAT??? Then how did the numbering, diacritical marks, etc. appear? It sounds like someone is attempting to sweep this reality under the rug). Regarding "consensus", who decides that?). the matter may be considered settled. This is precisely the point which has been noted in the quote of N J Dawood used by the missionary. It is quite clear that all the Qirâ'ât are given equal authority. The above quote taken from N J Dawood's translation of the Qur'an is actually in direct contradiction of what Samuel Green had intended to show in his article, i.e., that the Muslims follow different 'sets of the Qur'an' as if they are not all authoritative. One wonders why did he choose to quote the material which does not even serve his purpose!
From http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Gilchrist.html : "The early script known as kufi was soon adapted into a form of art and calligraphy and transcribers meticulously preserved the text by writing it out as perfectly as they could. If just a stroke or letter was not faultlessly reproduced they would scrap the page and start again. ... The script changed as well after the first few centuries and the naskhi script became the most popular and most of the surviving copies of old quran QurŸan manuscripts employed it. The similar thuluth script was used at times and to this day a cursive script known as maghribi ("western") is still used in countries such as Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Virtually all printed quran QurŸans employ the naskhi script. The oldest surviving passages of handwritten texts dating to the second century of Islam are inscribed in a slanted text known as al mail al-maÿil. More will be said on this subject in the last section of this book".
1683 AD note: This section of the post concludes with discussions the use of the printing press which are copied from a prior section.
From http://courses.unt.edu/rdecarvalho/h5040/StudentPapers/Huff,Toby.htm "Even the printing press was banned out of fears that printing the Quran and other religious texts would either defile the name of God or promote impiety".
From http://www.chowk.com/interacts/9426 : "Case in point is the day when a prototype of the Gutenberg press was presented to the Caliph of Turkey for purposes of printing the Quran. The Gutenberg press as we all know is responsible for the resurgence of Europe from the Dark Ages more than any other invention. When such an opportunity was presented to Muslims before it ever made an impression in Europe the scribes of the Quran rejected this machine and denounced it as an 'instrument of the devil'.
The rationale of the scribes was that since the printing press did not perform ablution before 'writing' the Quran it was therefore unfit but moreover it was devilish for printing the Quran without performing an ablution. ... A hurdle to understanding the Quran is its arcane Arabic. Some may argue that it's better for people to learn Arabic rather than corrupting the Quran by translating it into a native dialect. The truth is that there is no end to claiming that 'translating the Quran will corrupt its meaning'. God has so sealed the hearts of Muslims that they refuse to understand the Quran, even in Arabic. For it is an oft-heard claim of Arab speakers that they don't understand the Quran because the language is ancient and therefore beyond comprehension. If this is the case then the Islamic world has lost the message of the Quran even for the native Arab speaker. But even if we were all one billion of us to learn ancient Arabic as spoken in the dialect of the tribe of Quraish, ..."
From http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1095 : "Was there a ban on printing in Islam? I saw the following claim online here ( http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1095 ) (NOTE from 1683 AD: The following text is taken from this link). "Printing was banned by Islamic authorities because they believed the Koran would be dishonoured by appearing out of a machine. As a result, Arabs did not acquire printing presses until the 18th century. UPDATE: Geoff Carter in the comments has been tracking it down. There is some substance to this. The urls given refer to an article by Muhsin Mahdi, From the manuscript age to the age of printed books, in The Book in the Islamic World ( http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t4LEfpCW_kQC ) , ed. G.N.Atiyeh, State University of New York Press (1995), pp.1-16. This is not a study, as far as I can see, but rather a series of questions. So we still haven’t reached bottom of this one. UPDATE 2: Searching Google books, I found this link, (http://books.google.com/books?id=OMnt1iIEzdAC&pg=PA68&dq=koran+printing&lr=#v=onepage&q=koran%20printing&f=false ) J.G.Taylor, Indonesia, Yale (2004), p.68 in support: Although the printing press reached Muslim lands from Europe in 1492, Muslim kings banned setting Arabic into type until the early nineteenth century. No footnotes, tho. A little light comes from the Quarterly Review ( http://books.google.com/books?id=GWVZAAAAIAAJ ) p.475: 'An attempt of the same kind had been made by Achmet III., so early as the year 1727: the oulemas gave their consent, but it was rendered nugatory, by excepting the Koran, for a reason, as Mr. Walsh observes, ‘ characteristic of the people—they said it would be an act of impiety if the word of God should be squeezed and pressed together; but the true cause was, that great numbers of themselves earned a considerable income by transcribing those books, which would be at once destroyed, if suffered to be printed.’ As Turks read nothing else but the Koran, the printing-office was soon discontinued. Its renewal by Selim had no better success; it languished and declined on the death of its patron, ‘ who fell a victim to the rage of the Janissaries, for attempting to innovate upon their ancient and venerable ignorance'. This tends to suggest that any ban originated with the Ottomans, and, as with so much in that miserable state, under a pretence of piety sought to financially benefit certain individuals. Once the Koran began to be printed, Karpat remarks in The politicization of Islam, p. 231 ( http://books.google.com/books?id=PvVlS3ljx20C&pg=PA231&dq=%2Bkoran+%2Bprinting&lr=#v=onepage&q=%2Bkoran%20%2Bprinting&f=false), entrepreneurs quickly issued defective Korans as fast as possible, for profit. However I have just seen a reference to a specific ban on the Koran in 1727.In Chambers Edinburgh Journal ( http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA44&dq=%2Bkoran+%2Bprinting+%2Bforbidden&lr=&id=qK8AAAAAYAAJ&output=text ) p. 44, (1848) I find the following: 'The Sultan Bajazet II. issued a decree in 1483 forbidding the use of printed books by the Turks, under penalty of death. This decree was afterwards confirmed by his son Selim I. in 1515, and implicitly obeyed by the Mohammedans, with equal ignorance and fanaticism, until the eighteenth century, when, in the reign of Achmet III., Seid-Effendi, who had accompanied his father, the ambassador, to the court of Louis XV. in 1720, was so much struck with the advantages of printing, that he determined his own country should participate in them. For the attainment of this object he employed the services of a Hungarian renegade, who was subsequently surnamed Basmadjy—’ the Printer.’ A memorial was drawn up, by means of which the grand vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, an enlightened protector of literature, obtained a favourable edict from the sultan. But fearful of wounding the religious scruples of his subjects, and of alarming the numerous class of copyists, Achmet forbade the printing of the Koran, the oral laws of the Prophet, the commentaries on these works, and books on jurisprudence—leaving to the industry of the printers philosophical, medical, astronomical, geographical, historical, and other scientific works. The renegade was placed at the head of the new establishment, but the national character was against him ; and notwithstanding his activity, at the time of his death, which happened in 1746, he had not been able to print more than sixteen works. The first was a Turkish and Arabic dictionary, 2 vols. folio, of which the impression was completed in 1729; the price was fixed at thirty- five piastres, by order of the sultan. In the following year a Turkish grammar appeared, a copy of which, with each leaf of a different colour, is still in existence'. Again, no references. UPDATE: (12th May 2009) A most interesting paper ( see initial link, as this is PDF) by John-Paul Ghobrial addresses the lack of proper references for this story. I have written to the author asking for some more details. The sources given for the ban in this paper are two: 'Nicolas de Nicolay, The navigations, peregrinations and voyages, made into Turkie by Nicholas Nicholay Daulphinois, Lord of Arfeuile. conteining sundry singularities which the author hath there seene and observed;devided into foure books, with threescore figures, naturally set forth as well of men as women, according to the diversitie of nations., T. Washington trans. (London, 1585). p.130'. '…Maranes [Marranos] of late banished and driven out of Spaine & Portugale, who to the great detriment and damage of the Christianitie, have taught the Turkes diverse inventions, craftes and engines of warre, as to make artillerie, harquebuses, gunnepouder, shot, and other munitions: they have also there set up printing, not before seene in those countries, by the which in faire characters they put in light divers bookes in divers languages, as Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, and the Hebrewe toungue, being to them natural, but are not permitted to print the Turkie or Arabian tongue.’ The other is “Busbecq”in 1560. ... here http://books.google.com/books?id=jTMQ2KRH1YMC&pg=PA255&vq=printing&dq=busbecq&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0#v=onepage&q=printing&f=false and on p. 255 we find this text: 'No nation in the world has shown greater readiness than the Turks to avail themselves of the useful inventions of foreigners, as is proved by their employment of cannons and mortars, and many other things invented by Christians. They cannot, however, be induced as yet to use printing, or to establish public clocks, because they think that the Scriptures, that is, their sacred books – would no longer be scriptures if they were printed, and that, if public clocks were introduced, the authority of their muezzins and their ancient rites would be thereby impaired. John-Paul Ghobrial suggests that the first reference refers not to a general ban on printing, but to restrictions on dhimmis (=you and me) in an Islamic state doing so in the language of the ruling Moslems. But of course that may or may not be so.