Which Koran? (Part II)
The Significance of Koranic Variation
by Ibn Warraq (March 2008)
DO VARIANTS MATTER?
The variants between Korans (as set out last month) are not trifling, and are, in fact, of great significance. The problem is to work out what significance, and this proves to be no easy matter. For a flat-footed fundamentalist like Maududi, the admittance of any variant whether in the extant printed Korans available in the Islamic world or in the manuscripts like the Samarqand Quran or those recorded in the Hadith, commentaries and grammars is, of course, devastating. Variants constitute an irrefutable, knock-down argument against his absurdly rigid position (as quoted in part I), a position not held by all Muslim scholars, however. I believe their significance lies in a wider context, in their profound implication for the sources of the rise of Islam, for the forging of Islamic identity, for the genesis of the Koran itself, for Islamic Jurisprudence, for the so-called oral tradition, and for the history of the Arabic language and orthography. I shall leave these implications for later.
Even simply on their own terms, variants do result in significant differences in meaning which in turn have consequences for Islamic practice, ritual and belief. Thus, the variants in the printed Korans are not trivial. As an example of a variant reading on the level of vocalisation though not of the underlying graphic shape (or, in Arabic, rasm), there are the last two verses of Sura LXXXV: 21-22: (21) bal huwa qur’änun majïdun; (22) fï lawhim mahfüzun or mahfuhzin. The last syllable is in doubt. The Hafs Koran has, as we saw earlier, mahfuhãin, the genitive, giving the meaning, "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet." This is a reference to the fundamental Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. But the Warsh transmission has the nominative ending -un, and we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." Did the doctrine arise out of the reading, or did the doctrine influence the choice of the reading?
In Sura III verse 13, there is much ambiguity as the exact reference of the pronoun is not clear:
Bell: "You have already had a sign in two parties which met, one fighting in the way of Allah, another unbelieving, who saw them with their eyes twice as many as they were …."
Yusuf Ali: "There has already been for you a sign in the two armies that met (in combat): One was fighting in the cause of God, the other Resisting God; these saw with their own eyes Twice their number."
Arberry: "There has already been a sign for you in the two companies that encountered, one company fighting in the way of God and another unbelieving; they saw them twice the like of them, as the eye sees …."
This verse is a said to be a reference to the miracle of the battle of Badr, when Muslims putatively defeated forces twice their own number. However, this interpretation is much easier if we read the verb as saying "you saw them" tarawnahum, as in the Warsh reading, and not yarawnahum (they saw them) as in the Hafs reading. Warsh gives us a miracle, Hafs gives us a confusion of pronouns.
Ignaz Goldziher, one of the creators of modern Islamic Studies, showed how Hadith, Muslim Tradition, reflected "the social, political and religious ideals of transmitters themselves and of the societies or groups they served as spokesman. By Sunna was to be understood, not the inherited instruction of the Prophet, but the ius consuetudinis of a group or party, large or small. By hadith is meant the vehicle of that sunna, a report, verbal or written, conveying a description of the relevant practice, opinion or custom approved by the disseminators of the report."[1] Influenced by Goldziher’s work, Joseph Schacht elaborated a thesis that "rather than spreading out from an original centre at Medina, Islamic Law originated in the provinces. Reference of the Sunna to the Prophet was the end rather than the beginning of a process. Its purpose was to verify some local legal viewpoint. In other words, the Sunna differed and was differently defined from region to region."[2]
Of course, the conclusions of scholars like Goldziher and Schacht are equally applicable to Koranic variants, many of which are known to us through hadith, rather than extant Koranic manuscripts. In other words, the variants reflect the ideology, as Burton shows, of groups that wish to argue for their own viewpoint, to establish a ruling, to settle conflict of sources. For example the rite of Tawäf, going round the two hills of Safä and Marwa during Hajj, Pilgrimage, are considered obligatory by certain Muslim jurists despite a certain ambiguity in Surah II.158, which is interpreted by some to mean that the Tawäf was optional. Others still also regarded the Tawäf as optional but this time the view "was explicitly derived from the variant reading of II.158 transmitted in the muæùaf of `Abdullah Ibn Mas‘üd."[3]
Burton argues that when practice was at variance with the Koran, the partisans of the practice appealed to the Sunna of the Prophet, their opponents "improve the wording of the Qur’än, inserting a word and appealing to the authority of a Companion of the Prophet , from whom not merely a variant reading, but a variant Qur’än had apparently been transmitted. The alleged variant reading unmistakably proceeded from one of two rival and competing interpretations. To that extent the reading arose at a secondary stage."[4]
There is a similar exchange of argument and counter-argument concerning the penalty for breach of oaths [Surah V.89], a three days’ fast, ending as before with an appeal to a variant reading from Ibn Mas‘üd. Al-Shäfi‘ï argued that the Koran did not stipulate if the fast should be consecutive, hence Muslims were free to choose consecutive or separate days. Ùanïfs argued that the fast should be consecutive, as a variant reading of Ibn Mas‘üd indicates. The same variant reading was attributed to Ubayy.[5] Ubayy also had a very significant variant reading of Surah IV.24 concerning the Muslim Law on marriage; only with his interpolation does IV.24 "sanction the doctrine of mut’a, or temporary marriage, rejection of which was elsewhere being propounded on the basis of information from a third Companion of the Prophet as a part of the Sunna. Evidently the Qur’än, in the form of the Ubayy reading, is playing the role of a counter-sunna, rather, a counter-exegesis, the function of the Ubayy interpolation to gloss and bring out the full meaning of the root of samta`tum, mt`."[6]
As Al-Suyütï put it, "The differences in the readings indicate the differences in the legal rulings."[7] Thus we have two opposing doctrines - the invalidation of the ritual purity [wudü’] and the contrary doctrine - depending on how we read a certain word in IV.43 and V.9 as lämastum or lamastum; it is worth noting that all the printed Korans that I have listed in part I except the Flügel have the "defective" writing, with the long vowel after the letter läm indicated by a dagger alif, only the Flügel has the plene alif. Similarly, we have two opposing doctrines depending on how we read II.222 -yathurna or yattahirna -concerning the permissibility of sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman at the expiry of her period but before she has cleansed herself. [8]
Finally we have the example of V.6, as al- Suyütï says, "The verse was revealed to sanction two distinct legal doctrines: arjulakum - enjoined the washing of the feet, ajulikum -permitted the wiping of the feet."[9] Herbert Berg summarises the larger significance of these two interpretations, "Al-Tabarï adduces 47 hadiths which seek to clarify the expression wa-arjulakum ila al-ka`bayn (and your feet to the ankles) of Quran V:6. The first 27 hadiths read the passage as arjulakum (accusative); the other 20 hadiths read the passage as arjulikum (genitive)….Goldziher would see in these two sharply divided sets of hadiths the vestiges of a later debate within the Muslim community about the proper form of wudü’ (ablution) that has been projected back to the earlier generations of Muslims. Schacht might trace this ablution debate in other texts to determine the relative chronology and the provenance of the hadiths. He might also, along with Juynboll, seek a common link to help date the debate. ‘Ikrima is a candidate since he appears in five hadiths, though the isnads form more of a spider pattern. Wansbrough would abandon such use of the isnad except to note that their presence implies that the 47 hadiths reached their final form after 200 A.H.[9 Century, C.E.] Moreover, the hadiths are primarily halakhic and masoretic: they contain pronouncements from the Prophet, his Companions and their Successors and have recourse to variant readings and grammatical explanations. Their presence implies a relatively late date as well."[10]
Burton following Al- Suyütï argues that "the majority of variant readings came to be regarded as little more than exegeses that had gradually crept into the texts transmitted from the Companions."[11] While the latter observation may well explain some of the mechanism of how the Companion texts came into being, I would go further and doubt the very existence of Codices belonging to the Companions; they have been conjured up by exegetical hadiths. In other words, the question of variants leads inexorably to the questions of the authenticity of hadiths relating them.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Which Koran? (Part II) - - - The Significance of Koranic Variation
2) Which Koran? (Part I)
Showing posts with label Ibn Warraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ibn Warraq. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
WHICH KORAN?
Which Koran?
by Ibn Warraq
There is no such thing as the Koran. There is no, and there never has been a, textus receptus ne varietur of the Holy Book of the Muslims. We have two kinds of evidence for this claim. One which comes from Muslims themselves. Many Classical Muslim scholars-Koranic commentators, collectors of hadith, lexica and Qirä’ät books, for example - have acknowledged not only that many verses revealed to Muhammad have been lost, and hence the Koran that we possess is incomplete, but also that the Koran assembled, whether by Abü Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Alï or ‘Uthmän, is capable of being read in different ways, in other words that variants exist. There are a number of hadiths that recount “the loss, withdrawal, or forgetting of this or that ‘verse’ said to have been revealed to the Prophet but not figuring”[2] in the Koran as it now exists. The other comes from extant Koranic manuscripts, inscriptions and coins.
...
Variants in Extant Printed Korans from the Islamic World.
[1] I.4: Mäliki is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Saudi Koran I. According to Muhammad Ali (see Koran number 3 in above list), there is a world of difference between mälik and malik, the former signifying master and the latter king; a master being more than a king. God is more than a king, and hence "master" is the correct translation. Many early Koranic manuscripts do not have the plene alif.
[2] I.6: As-siräta is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Saudi Koran I. The verb hada is differently vowelled, ihdina in the Istanbul Koran but ahdina in the Saudi Koran.
[3] II.72: faddära'tum is written defectively with a dagger alif in the M. Ali Koran, while Warsh II has the scriptio plena, i.e. the alifs in faddära'tum are made explicit. There is also a discrepancy in the verse numbering, II.72 as opposed to II.71 respectively.
[4] II.125: The Hafs is in the Imperative ['attakhidhü], and means, "Take [as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood]. The Warsh is in the simple past ['attakhadhü], meaning "They have taken ..."
[5] II.132: Yusuf Ali has wa -wassä as opposed to wa-'awsä. i.e., Yusuf Ali Koran lacks an alif after the wäw at the beginning of the verse. Both Warsh and Yusuf Ali have 'Ibrähïmu written defectively. As Puin pointed out, it is clear that in a certain phase of the orthographic development of Arabic, it was no longer understood that Yä' in the Arabic script was nothing other than /a:/ The original pronunciation of Abrähäm had to be altered, according to which Yä' now stood for / i :/ or / ay/ .[36]
[6] II.140: 'am taqülüna as opposed to 'am yaqülüna, giving the meaning "do you say ...?" or " do they say ...? respectively.
[7] II.259: nunsizuhä , as opposed to nunsiruhä.
[8] III.13: yarawnahum (they saw them) as opposed to tarawnahum (you saw them). This verse is a said to be a reference to the miracle of the battle of Badr, when Muslims putatively defeated forces twice their own number. However, this interpretation is much easier if we read the verb as saying "you saw them" tarawnahum, as in the Warsh reading, and not yarawnahum (they saw them) as in the Hafs reading. Warsh gives us a miracle, Hafs gives us a confusion of pronouns. See discussion of this verse above, p.17.
[9] III.37: yä maryamu is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Yusuf Ali Koran, the alif is made explicit in the Istanbul Koran.
[10] III.80 / 81:
wa'id 'akhada l-lähu mïtäqa -n-nabiyyina lamä 'ataytukum M.Ali Koran III,80
wa-'ida 'akhada l-lähu mïtäqa –n-nabiyyina lamä 'ataynäkum Warsh I : III,81.
wa-'id / wa-'ida ; 'ataytukum / 'ataynäkum ; mïtäqa written defectively in Warsh I, and notice the difference in verse numbering.
[11] III.133: wa -säri‘ü [M. Ali Koran III, 132] as opposed to säri‘ü [Warsh I:III,133]
[12]. III.146 [M. Ali Koran] Hafs: Simple past tense giving the reading "fought "[qätala], while Warsh I is in the passive, meaning "were killed" [qutila]: an enormous difference in meaning. "And how many a prophet have there been a number of devoted men who fought (beside him)" or "...who were killed beside him.” respectively.
[13]III, 158: lä 'ila as opposed to la'ila; the extra alif connected with läm in Yusuf Ali is not read. lä is normally the negative particle, and if read as such would give the reading "not to God;" it is read as "certainly to God.”
[14]III, 167: lä 'attaba‘näkum as opposed to la-t-taba‘näkum . See note for III, 158 above.
[15] V, 53 / V, 56. Yusuf Ali [V, 56, note the difference of verse numbering] has wa-yaqülu, Warsh I [V, 53] lacks the wäw in front of yaqülu.
[16]V, 54 / V, 57. Yusuf Ali has [V, 57] yartadda, and Warsh I [V, 54] yartadid.
[17] VII. 57 MWL Koran has bushran [Good News] and Warsh I Nushran [spread out / diffuse]
[18]IX, 47: lä –'awda‘ü as opposed to la'awda‘ü. See note to III, 158 above.
[19]IX, 107: wa-l-ladïna as opposed to 'ilìïna.
[20]XVIII, 36: minhä as opposed to minhumä.
[21]XXI, 4: Istanbul: qäla; M.Ali: qäla written defectively with dagger alif; Warsh I: qul.
[22] XXI, 112: Istanbul: qäla ; M.Ali: qäla written defectively with dagger alif; Warsh I: qul.
[23] XXIII, 8: wa-l-ladïna hum li-'amänätihim wa- ‘ahidihim rä‘üna, written defectively in Muhammad Ali Koran. The scriptio plena of the Istanbul Koran in the writing of li-'amänätihim and rä‘üna. Note li'amänätihim as opposed to 'alimänätihim Warsh II.
[24] XXIII, 112 M. Ali: qäla, written defectively, translated by M. Ali as "He will say"; Warsh: qäla, written with scriptio plena.
[25] XXIII, 114 M. Ali: qäla, written defectively, translated by M. Ali as "He will say"; Warsh: qäla, written with scriptio plena
[26] XXVI, 217 wa – tawakkal [M. Ali] as opposed to fa-tawakkal [Warsh I]
[27] XXVII, 21: lä- adbahannahu [M. Ali], where lä is not be read as the negative particle; la-'aìbahannahu [Flügel]. Ibn Khaldün wrote: "No attention should be
paid in this connection to the assumption of certain incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la-'adbahannahu "I shall indeed slaughter him" as an indication that the slaughtering did not take place (lä - adbahannahu). The addition of the yä' in bi-ayydin "with hands (power),” [LI,47, see below at 29. LI,47] they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. "[37]
[28] XXXVII, 68 lä 'ila [M. Ali, with extra alif] la-'ila [Iranian]
[29] XL, 26 'aw 'an [M. Ali] as opposed to wa- 'an [Warsh I]
[30] XLII, 30 mä 'asäbakum ...fa-bi-mä [ M.Ali , scriptio plena for the word Æaæäbakum, using the alif, while Warsh I has the defective alif; Warsh has bi-mä as opposed to fa-bi-mä in M. Ali]
[31 ]XLIII, 68 yä ‘ibädi [M. Ali] as opposed to yä‘ibädï [Warsh I, note the long –ï] [32] LI, 47 bi-'aydin [M. Ali] as opposed to bi-'ayydin [Warsh I, has an extra yäÆ]. See Ibn Khaldün's comments above at 24. XXVII, 21.
[33] LVII, 24: huwa –l-ghaniyyu [M. Ali, has an extra word huwa] as opposed to al-ghaniyyu [Warsh I].
[34] LXXII, 16
M. Ali: wa –'an lawi staqämu ‘alä t-tarïqati la- 'asqaynähum mä'an ghadaqan
Istanbul: Has the plene alif for both staqämu and 'asqaynähum
Saudi 2.: Lacks the word Æan before lawi staqämu; the latter word is also written
defectively, with a dagger alif.
[35] LXXXV, 22 [M. Ali] mahfüzin as opposed to mahfüzun [Warsh I].
The M. Ali Koran has mahfüzin, the genitive, giving the meaning "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet." This is a reference to the fundamental Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. But the Warsh transmission has the nominative ending -un, and we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." Did the doctrine arise out of the reading, or did the doctrine influence the choice of the reading?
Pertinent Links:
1) Which Koran?
by Ibn Warraq
"It is an extraordinary thing that we still have no critical text of the Qur`an for common use' --- Arthur Jeffery, 1937 [1]
There is no such thing as the Koran. There is no, and there never has been a, textus receptus ne varietur of the Holy Book of the Muslims. We have two kinds of evidence for this claim. One which comes from Muslims themselves. Many Classical Muslim scholars-Koranic commentators, collectors of hadith, lexica and Qirä’ät books, for example - have acknowledged not only that many verses revealed to Muhammad have been lost, and hence the Koran that we possess is incomplete, but also that the Koran assembled, whether by Abü Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Alï or ‘Uthmän, is capable of being read in different ways, in other words that variants exist. There are a number of hadiths that recount “the loss, withdrawal, or forgetting of this or that ‘verse’ said to have been revealed to the Prophet but not figuring”[2] in the Koran as it now exists. The other comes from extant Koranic manuscripts, inscriptions and coins.
...
Variants in Extant Printed Korans from the Islamic World.
[1] I.4: Mäliki is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Saudi Koran I. According to Muhammad Ali (see Koran number 3 in above list), there is a world of difference between mälik and malik, the former signifying master and the latter king; a master being more than a king. God is more than a king, and hence "master" is the correct translation. Many early Koranic manuscripts do not have the plene alif.
[2] I.6: As-siräta is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Saudi Koran I. The verb hada is differently vowelled, ihdina in the Istanbul Koran but ahdina in the Saudi Koran.
[3] II.72: faddära'tum is written defectively with a dagger alif in the M. Ali Koran, while Warsh II has the scriptio plena, i.e. the alifs in faddära'tum are made explicit. There is also a discrepancy in the verse numbering, II.72 as opposed to II.71 respectively.
[4] II.125: The Hafs is in the Imperative ['attakhidhü], and means, "Take [as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood]. The Warsh is in the simple past ['attakhadhü], meaning "They have taken ..."
[5] II.132: Yusuf Ali has wa -wassä as opposed to wa-'awsä. i.e., Yusuf Ali Koran lacks an alif after the wäw at the beginning of the verse. Both Warsh and Yusuf Ali have 'Ibrähïmu written defectively. As Puin pointed out, it is clear that in a certain phase of the orthographic development of Arabic, it was no longer understood that Yä' in the Arabic script was nothing other than /a:/ The original pronunciation of Abrähäm had to be altered, according to which Yä' now stood for / i :/ or / ay/ .[36]
[6] II.140: 'am taqülüna as opposed to 'am yaqülüna, giving the meaning "do you say ...?" or " do they say ...? respectively.
[7] II.259: nunsizuhä , as opposed to nunsiruhä.
[8] III.13: yarawnahum (they saw them) as opposed to tarawnahum (you saw them). This verse is a said to be a reference to the miracle of the battle of Badr, when Muslims putatively defeated forces twice their own number. However, this interpretation is much easier if we read the verb as saying "you saw them" tarawnahum, as in the Warsh reading, and not yarawnahum (they saw them) as in the Hafs reading. Warsh gives us a miracle, Hafs gives us a confusion of pronouns. See discussion of this verse above, p.17.
[9] III.37: yä maryamu is written defectively with a dagger alif in the Yusuf Ali Koran, the alif is made explicit in the Istanbul Koran.
[10] III.80 / 81:
wa'id 'akhada l-lähu mïtäqa -n-nabiyyina lamä 'ataytukum M.Ali Koran III,80
wa-'ida 'akhada l-lähu mïtäqa –n-nabiyyina lamä 'ataynäkum Warsh I : III,81.
wa-'id / wa-'ida ; 'ataytukum / 'ataynäkum ; mïtäqa written defectively in Warsh I, and notice the difference in verse numbering.
[11] III.133: wa -säri‘ü [M. Ali Koran III, 132] as opposed to säri‘ü [Warsh I:III,133]
[12]. III.146 [M. Ali Koran] Hafs: Simple past tense giving the reading "fought "[qätala], while Warsh I is in the passive, meaning "were killed" [qutila]: an enormous difference in meaning. "And how many a prophet have there been a number of devoted men who fought (beside him)" or "...who were killed beside him.” respectively.
[13]III, 158: lä 'ila as opposed to la'ila; the extra alif connected with läm in Yusuf Ali is not read. lä is normally the negative particle, and if read as such would give the reading "not to God;" it is read as "certainly to God.”
[14]III, 167: lä 'attaba‘näkum as opposed to la-t-taba‘näkum . See note for III, 158 above.
[15] V, 53 / V, 56. Yusuf Ali [V, 56, note the difference of verse numbering] has wa-yaqülu, Warsh I [V, 53] lacks the wäw in front of yaqülu.
[16]V, 54 / V, 57. Yusuf Ali has [V, 57] yartadda, and Warsh I [V, 54] yartadid.
[17] VII. 57 MWL Koran has bushran [Good News] and Warsh I Nushran [spread out / diffuse]
[18]IX, 47: lä –'awda‘ü as opposed to la'awda‘ü. See note to III, 158 above.
[19]IX, 107: wa-l-ladïna as opposed to 'ilìïna.
[20]XVIII, 36: minhä as opposed to minhumä.
[21]XXI, 4: Istanbul: qäla; M.Ali: qäla written defectively with dagger alif; Warsh I: qul.
[22] XXI, 112: Istanbul: qäla ; M.Ali: qäla written defectively with dagger alif; Warsh I: qul.
[23] XXIII, 8: wa-l-ladïna hum li-'amänätihim wa- ‘ahidihim rä‘üna, written defectively in Muhammad Ali Koran. The scriptio plena of the Istanbul Koran in the writing of li-'amänätihim and rä‘üna. Note li'amänätihim as opposed to 'alimänätihim Warsh II.
[24] XXIII, 112 M. Ali: qäla, written defectively, translated by M. Ali as "He will say"; Warsh: qäla, written with scriptio plena.
[25] XXIII, 114 M. Ali: qäla, written defectively, translated by M. Ali as "He will say"; Warsh: qäla, written with scriptio plena
[26] XXVI, 217 wa – tawakkal [M. Ali] as opposed to fa-tawakkal [Warsh I]
[27] XXVII, 21: lä- adbahannahu [M. Ali], where lä is not be read as the negative particle; la-'aìbahannahu [Flügel]. Ibn Khaldün wrote: "No attention should be
paid in this connection to the assumption of certain incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la-'adbahannahu "I shall indeed slaughter him" as an indication that the slaughtering did not take place (lä - adbahannahu). The addition of the yä' in bi-ayydin "with hands (power),” [LI,47, see below at 29. LI,47] they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. "[37]
[28] XXXVII, 68 lä 'ila [M. Ali, with extra alif] la-'ila [Iranian]
[29] XL, 26 'aw 'an [M. Ali] as opposed to wa- 'an [Warsh I]
[30] XLII, 30 mä 'asäbakum ...fa-bi-mä [ M.Ali , scriptio plena for the word Æaæäbakum, using the alif, while Warsh I has the defective alif; Warsh has bi-mä as opposed to fa-bi-mä in M. Ali]
[31 ]XLIII, 68 yä ‘ibädi [M. Ali] as opposed to yä‘ibädï [Warsh I, note the long –ï] [32] LI, 47 bi-'aydin [M. Ali] as opposed to bi-'ayydin [Warsh I, has an extra yäÆ]. See Ibn Khaldün's comments above at 24. XXVII, 21.
[33] LVII, 24: huwa –l-ghaniyyu [M. Ali, has an extra word huwa] as opposed to al-ghaniyyu [Warsh I].
[34] LXXII, 16
M. Ali: wa –'an lawi staqämu ‘alä t-tarïqati la- 'asqaynähum mä'an ghadaqan
Istanbul: Has the plene alif for both staqämu and 'asqaynähum
Saudi 2.: Lacks the word Æan before lawi staqämu; the latter word is also written
defectively, with a dagger alif.
[35] LXXXV, 22 [M. Ali] mahfüzin as opposed to mahfüzun [Warsh I].
The M. Ali Koran has mahfüzin, the genitive, giving the meaning "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet." This is a reference to the fundamental Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. But the Warsh transmission has the nominative ending -un, and we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." Did the doctrine arise out of the reading, or did the doctrine influence the choice of the reading?
Pertinent Links:
1) Which Koran?
Thursday, August 9, 2007
MUST READ: ISLAMIC ENLIGHTENMENT
Islamic Enlightenment
by Ibn Warraq
What we need, of course, is not a Reformation in Islam but an Enlightenment. For me Reformation implies dishonest, piece-meal tinkering with this or that aspect of Islam which really leaves the whole unsavory edifice essentially intact. But we are not going to be able to do away with or extirpate the religion of one billion people, nor is it necessary. We need to bring about the secularization of the habits, attitudes and thoughts of Muslim people whether in the Islamic world or the West. We need to separate the mosque from the state but we need to achieve this formidable feat in the minds of Muslims, and not just politically. This secularization was accomplished slowly in Western civilization but the entire process was, perhaps, put into motion during the Greek Ionian Enlightenment during the fifth century Before Christ, but finally gathered crucial momentum during the early Enlightenment, that is the late 17th century, though we usually associate the Age of Reason, or L' Age des Lumières, Aufklarung, De Verlichting, with the Eighteenth Century. It would be entirely appropriate to mention and pay a tribute to the Dutch contribution to the European Enlightenment, a contribution often neglected but which has now been magnificently vindicated by Jonathan Israel in his truly great historical work Radical Enlightenment.[1] The latter work reassesses not only the equally neglected importance of Spinoza, the Dutch Jewish philosopher and Biblical Critic, to whom I shall return later, but also Van den Enden [1602-74], the Dutch radical thinker, and the Dutch Spinozists like Adriaen Koerbagh [1632-69], and his brother Johannes Koerbagh [d.1672], and Pieter Balling [d.1669], Petrus van Balen [1643-90], Balthasar Bekker [1634-98], Adriaen Beverland [1650-1716], Anthonie van Dale [1638- 1708]. Arnold Geulincx [1624-69], Willem Goeree [1635-1711], Frederik van Leenhof [1647-1713], and Lodewijk Meyer [1629-81], to name some of the most important thinkers. Then there is of course the role played by the free presses and bookshops of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other Dutch cities, which, furthermore, gave shelter to such pre-Enlightenment figures as Pierre Bayle, known as the Philosopher of Rotterdam. There was even a group of French-speaking revolutionary thinkers, inspired by Spinoza, particularly his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, based here, known as the Hague Coterie. As I said earlier, I shall return in a minute, to the significance of Spinoza's work for us today. Perhaps we can call the present group of speakers gathered here for the next three days as the New Hague Coterie.
How can we bring about an Enlightenment among Muslims? I shall now set forth a series of concrete, uncompromising proposals if we wish to bring about the hoped for Enlightenment. Wittgenstein once said that we cannot hope to solve any problems of philosophy unless we solve all of them. I think what he meant was that all these problems are interconnected, and we cannot solve them in isolation, one after and another; we must address them globally, comprehensively.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamic Enlightenment
by Ibn Warraq
What we need, of course, is not a Reformation in Islam but an Enlightenment. For me Reformation implies dishonest, piece-meal tinkering with this or that aspect of Islam which really leaves the whole unsavory edifice essentially intact. But we are not going to be able to do away with or extirpate the religion of one billion people, nor is it necessary. We need to bring about the secularization of the habits, attitudes and thoughts of Muslim people whether in the Islamic world or the West. We need to separate the mosque from the state but we need to achieve this formidable feat in the minds of Muslims, and not just politically. This secularization was accomplished slowly in Western civilization but the entire process was, perhaps, put into motion during the Greek Ionian Enlightenment during the fifth century Before Christ, but finally gathered crucial momentum during the early Enlightenment, that is the late 17th century, though we usually associate the Age of Reason, or L' Age des Lumières, Aufklarung, De Verlichting, with the Eighteenth Century. It would be entirely appropriate to mention and pay a tribute to the Dutch contribution to the European Enlightenment, a contribution often neglected but which has now been magnificently vindicated by Jonathan Israel in his truly great historical work Radical Enlightenment.[1] The latter work reassesses not only the equally neglected importance of Spinoza, the Dutch Jewish philosopher and Biblical Critic, to whom I shall return later, but also Van den Enden [1602-74], the Dutch radical thinker, and the Dutch Spinozists like Adriaen Koerbagh [1632-69], and his brother Johannes Koerbagh [d.1672], and Pieter Balling [d.1669], Petrus van Balen [1643-90], Balthasar Bekker [1634-98], Adriaen Beverland [1650-1716], Anthonie van Dale [1638- 1708]. Arnold Geulincx [1624-69], Willem Goeree [1635-1711], Frederik van Leenhof [1647-1713], and Lodewijk Meyer [1629-81], to name some of the most important thinkers. Then there is of course the role played by the free presses and bookshops of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other Dutch cities, which, furthermore, gave shelter to such pre-Enlightenment figures as Pierre Bayle, known as the Philosopher of Rotterdam. There was even a group of French-speaking revolutionary thinkers, inspired by Spinoza, particularly his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, based here, known as the Hague Coterie. As I said earlier, I shall return in a minute, to the significance of Spinoza's work for us today. Perhaps we can call the present group of speakers gathered here for the next three days as the New Hague Coterie.
How can we bring about an Enlightenment among Muslims? I shall now set forth a series of concrete, uncompromising proposals if we wish to bring about the hoped for Enlightenment. Wittgenstein once said that we cannot hope to solve any problems of philosophy unless we solve all of them. I think what he meant was that all these problems are interconnected, and we cannot solve them in isolation, one after and another; we must address them globally, comprehensively.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamic Enlightenment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
