Please comment on Christoph Luxenberg's theory that ...

"the original language of the Qur�an was not was not Arabic but something closer to Aramaic. He says the copy of the Qur�an used today is a mistranscription of the original text from Muhammad�s time, which according to Islamic tradition was destroyed by the third caliph, Osman, in the seventh century. But Arabic did not turn up as a written language until 150 years after Muhammad�s death, and most learned Arabs at that time spoke a version of Aramaic."

Can you prove otherwise?  Didn't Osman destroy all the manuscripts?  How can you prove it was written in Arabic? 

AliBaba, you are REALLY reaching here. If your sole intent is to try to discredit Islam and drag it through the mud, then I suggest you move on to another site.

Anyone can come up with crazy theories. Can you discredit the Da Vinci Code? Can you discredit the theory that Jesus is buried in a sepulcher in Kashmir? Can you discredit the recently discovered Gospel of Judas? At least this ancient parchment exists. Prove it's a lie, if you can...

"the original language of the Qur�an was not was not Arabic but something closer to Aramaic. He says the copy of the Qur�an used today is a mistranscription of the original text from Muhammad�s time, which according to Islamic tradition was destroyed by the third caliph, Osman, in the seventh century. But Arabic did not turn up as a written language until 150 years after Muhammad�s death, and most learned Arabs at that time spoke a version of Aramaic."

The answer can be seen from Hanslow M. Broadvision's statement in which he says,"The original language of Qur'aan was in the Arabic spoken by the Meccan tribe of Quraish and Muhammad belonged to this tribe. The Hebrew language gave rise to two langauges almost simultaneously; one was Aramaic and the other was Arabic. Arabic and Aramaic writings were found ona tablet discovered by French archaeologists in Syria and they have been dated at 500-600 years before the birth of Jesus. It thus shows that the langauge was there far before that date.

From you, Ali Baba: "Can you prove otherwise?  Didn't Osman destroy all the manuscripts?  How can you prove it was written in Arabic?"

He still had some papyrus left up his sleeve. It was written in Koine Greek then translated back into Arabic.      and Dantes said the best,"Human insanity knows no bounds."  

In April 1901, two French archeologists, R. Dussaud and F. Macler, discovered the tomb of Imru al-Qays. The date of death was 328 CE. The inscription on the tomb was written in Mudari Arabic. What was most striking about this discovery was that it not only pushed back the history of Mudari Arabic 200 years, the previous oldest inscription was in 519 CE, but that the language on the tomb was so close to the Arabic of the Quran.

This is a full 200 years before the birth of the Prophet Mohammed. Most academics agree that by the time of the Prophet's birth, written and spoken Mudari Arabic flourished. 

Alibaba wrote: ak:  I know it doesn't have to be true.  There is a theory that the New Testament was orginally written in Hebrew - I don't believe it, it's just a theory.  What do you think of this theory regarding the Quran?

Alibaba:

The New testament as you know it was not compiled as a book until the meeting of the Nicene council who created it. Are you a Christian? the Quaran as we know it has always been intact as we know it and only had one messenger that revealed it, the books of the bible has many human sources! Much of the King james version was translated from greek and aramaic for the new testament, the old testament had aramaic and some egyptian? Are you trying to tear something down here or just inquire@?

Alibaba wrote: ak:  I know it doesn't have to be true.  There is a theory that the New Testament was orginally written in Hebrew - I don't believe it, it's just a theory.  What do you think of this theory regarding the Quran?

The old testament was written in Aramaic, Hebrew as we know it today didnt exist back then.

Alibaba wrote:  Please comment on Christoph Luxenberg's theory that ... "the original language of the Qur�an was not was not Arabic but something closer to Aramaic. He says the copy of the Qur�an used today is a mistranscription of the original text from Muhammad�s time, which according to Islamic tradition was destroyed by the third caliph, Osman, in the seventh century. But Arabic did not turn up as a written language until 150 years after Muhammad�s death, and most learned Arabs at that time spoke a version of Aramaic." Can you prove otherwise?  Didn't Osman destroy all the manuscripts?  How can you prove it was written in Arabic?

The title of this book announces a new 'reading' of the Qur'an and the subtitle promises 'a contribution to the decoding of the language of the Qur'an.' The author's theses are summarised succinctly in his 'resum�' (pp. 299-307): the Qur'an is not written in Arabic but in an 'Aramaic-Arabic mixed language' which was spoken in Mecca at the time of Muharnmad. Mecca was 'originally an Aramaic settlement'. This is 'confirmed' by the fact that the name makkah is really Aramaic m�kkQ�, 'low'. This mixed language was recorded, from the beginning, in a defective script, i.e., without vowel signs or the diacritic points which later distinguish b, t, n, y, etc. The author denies the existence of a parallel oral tradition of Qur' an recitation. Classical Arabic comes from somewhere else (but we are not told where). The Arabs could not understand the Qur'an, known to them as it was only from defectively written manuscripts, and reinterpreted these documents in the light nf their own language. The proposed 'Aramaic reading' of the Qur'an allows us to rediscover its original meaning.

It might be useful to distinguish straight away what is new and what is not new in these theses. Muslim scholars of the classical period debated already the question of whether or not there is 'non-Arabic' (Aramaic, Persian, etc.) linguistic material in the Qur.an, whereby at least the more broad-minded authorities were content that there was; since God created all languages there is no reason why He should not have used words from different languages in His revelation. Modern linguistic scholarship established, certainly by the middle of the 19th century, that the Arabic language, both in the Qur'an and in other texts, contains a significant number of loan-words from several dialects of Aramaic (Syriac, Babylonian Aramaic, etc). Aramaic was the principal cultural language of the area between the Sinai and the Tigris for more than a millennium and it exercised a considerable influence on all the languages of the region, including the Hebrew of the later portions of the Old Testament. The Arabs participated in the civilisation of the ancient Near East, many of them were Christians or Jews, so there is nothing surprising about the fact that they borrowed heavily from Aramaic. But this does not make Arabic a 'mixed language'. What is new in Luxenberg's thesis is the claim that large portions of the Qur'an are not grammatically correct Arabic, but need to be read as Aramaic, inflectional endings and all. The Qur'an is thus not (grammatically) Arabic with Aramaic loan-words, but is composed in a jargon that mixes structural elements of two different languages. We shall examine the plausibility of this thesis in due course.

The second principal component of the author's argumentation is that, since the later Muslims were unable to understand the Aramaic-Arabic jargon of their sacred book, they were forced arbitrarily to add diacritic signs to the text so as to make it into halfway comprehensible (classical) Arabic, thereby inventing a supposed oral tradition to justify this new reading. To rediscover the 'original' meaning we need to disregard the diacritical signs in the traditional text and find some other reading. This line of argument is also not new. It has been pursued in recent years in a series of articles by the North American Arabist J. A. Bellamy as well as in a (particularly bad) book by the German theologian G�nter L�ling; strangely, none of these are mentioned in Luxenberg's bibliography. This too will be discussed in the course of the present review. In any case, a book that announces already in the preface (p. ix) that its author has chosen not to discuss 'the whole [sic!] of the relevant literature' because this literature' makes hardly any contribution to the new method put forward here' is one that poses, from the outset, questions about its own scholarly integrity.

But let us look at a few examples of the author's 'new method'. Because of the technical linguistic nature of this discussion I will use a consistent Semitist system of transliteration (in bold) and transcription (in italics) for both Syriac and Arabic, a system differing both from the one used by the author of the book under review and from that otherwise followed by this journal.

One of the main planks of Luxenberg's theory of the 'Aramaic-Arabic mixed language' is the contention that in a number of Qur'anic passages the final aleph of an Arabic word stands not for the Arabic accusative ending -an, but for the Aramaic ending of the determinate state ( -� in the singular or -� in the plural). On p. 30 the author discusses Q. 11:24 and Q. 39:29, where the 'current Qur'an' ('der heutige Koran') has hal yastawiy�ni maQalan, 'are the two similar as an example?', the last word being an accusative of specification (tamy�z). The author thinks that the meaning is improved if is taken to be a 'transcription' of the Syriac plural mtl' (maQl�) and that the sentence consequently means 'Are the examples [plural!] similar [dual!]?'. Translated into modern Arabic' ('ins heutige Arabisch �bertragen'), the Qur'anic sentence would then (supposedly) be hal yastawiy�ni l-maQal�ni. Most first-year students of Arabic are sure to know that this is neither classical nor modern Arabic, but simply wrong. But even without this lapsus, it can hardly be claimed that the 'Syro-Aramaic reading' offers any improvement in the understanding of the Qur'anic passages.

On p. 37 the author discusses Q. 61:61 innan� had�n� rabb� 'il� sir�tin mustaq�min d�nan qiyaman, which, if d�nan qiyaman is in fact an accusative of specification, would need to be translated by something like 'verily, my Lord has directed me to a straight path in accordance with a firm religion', or, if we assume a mixed construction (had� construed first with the preposition 'il� and then with double accusative), it could mean '..... to a straight path, a firm religion'. Our author's proposal is that the syntactical difficulty of the latter rendering could be alleviated by taking not as an Arabic accusative but as Syriac dyn' qym' (d�n� kayy�m�), which he translates as 'a firm belief' ('feststehender, best�ndiger Glaube'). But in so doing the author overlooks the fact that, unlike Arabic d�nun, Aramaic d�n� does not actually mean 'belief, religion', but only 'judgement, sentence'. Arabic d�n, in the meaning 'religion', is not borrowed from Aramaic but from Middle Persian d�n (Avestan da�n�-).

On pp. 39ff. the author connects the problematic Qur' anic term han�fun with Aramaic hanp�, 'pagan', and specifically with the Pauline doctrine of Abraham as the paradigm of salvation for the gentiles. I have recently argued along similar lines in a lecture delivered in the summer of the year 2000 and eventually published in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 65 (2002), pp. 16-25, but differently from 'Luxenberg' I did not fail to mention that the same suggestion had been made long ago both by Margoliouth and by Ahrens, nor did I commit the absurdity of claiming (as our author does on p. 39) that Arabic is a 'Wiedergabe' of Syriac hnp', despite the fact that the Arabic form has an -i-, of which there is no trace in Syriac.

But in the eyes of our author, the Aramaic suffixes -� and -� are 'represented' in the Qur'an not only by alif, but also by ha'. Thus [p. 34] Arabic (xal�fatun) is 'the phonetic transcription' of Syriac hlyp' (hl�f�). Unfortunately, no reasonis given for why, in this 'phonetic transcription', the Aramaic laryngeal h is not 'transcribed' by the phonetically identical Arabic laryngeal h, but by x.

On p. 35 the author discusses the Qur'anic word for 'angels' (plural), for which the traditional reading is mal�'ikatun. The author thinks that this is really the Syriac word for 'angels', which he spells, in Syriac script, (correctly) as ml'k', and which he transcribes (wrongly) as mal�k�; in fact, the correct Syriac vocalisation is malax� (the first aleph being left over from the older form *mal'ax- ) In any case, neither the Syriac spelling, nor the correct vocalisation, nor even the author's erroneous vocalisation explains the -y- of the Arabic plural. The author then goes on to claim that the postulated 'Syro-Aramaic pronunciation' of the Qur'anic plural is made certain ('gesichert') by the 'modern Arabic of the Near East mal�yk�. This is a big jumble. In fact, the Arabic singular mal'akun or malakun is in all likelihood borrowed from Aramaic mal'ax- or malax-, but the plural mal�'ikatun is a perfectly regular Arabic formation, and is represented graphically by , with the usual Qur'anic spelling of internal -a-. The cited 'modern Arabic' (more correctly Levantine) form is the expected dialectal reflex of the classical pausal form mal�'ika(h), with palatalisation ( 'imalah) of the final -a to -e (I see little justification for the transcription with long -e), and has nothing to do with the Syriac plural malax�.

But once the 'mixed-language' status of the Qur'an has been postulated, the author evidently thinks it possible to take any Arabic word that vaguely resembles something in Syriac and to determine its meaning not from the Arabic but from the Syriac lexicon. Thus on pp. 196ff. the very ordinary Arabic verb daraba, 'to beat', is quite arbitrarily said to derive from the Syriac verb traf, which, among other things, means 'to beat, to move, to shake (wings), etc.' Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, p. 290, compares the Arabic verb tarafa, 'to repel'. It seems unlikely that the Aramaic root should also have anything to do with Arabic daraba; the correspondences d/t and b/p(f) are certainly not the norm in Semitic cognates and would be perhaps even more surprising in the case of a loan-word. But this difficulty does not stop the author from assigning the meanings of the Syriac word to the various occurrence of daraba in the Qur'an.

Then, on p. 283 the author claims that the Arabic verb taga, 'to rebel, tyrannise, etc.' has, apart from the secondary , nothing Arabic about it', but is a 'borrowing' from Syriac t`a. He then picks out of a Syriac dictionary the meaning 'to forget' and assigns this to the Qur'anic instances of taga. But the fact that the Arabic root has gayn where the Aramaic has `ayin shows very clearly that the Arabic word is not borrowed from Aramaic, but that they are good Semitic cognates. Anyway, the usual meaning of Syriac t`a is 'to err, to be led into error, etc.', although it can also mean 'to forget'. So even if the Arabic verb were a borrowing from Syriac there would still be nothing compelling about the new meaning assigned to it by our author.

I shall quote one last example of the author's 'Syro-Aramaic reading' of the Qur'anic text. In Q. 96:19 the last word of the sura is (i)qtarib, which has until now always heen understand to mean 'draw near' (imperative). But our author [p. 296] thinks it means 'take part in the eucharist' ('nimm an der Abendmahlliturgie teil'), since iqtaraba is 'without doubt borrowed' ('ohne Zweifel .... entlehnt') from the Syriac verb eQkarrab, which besides meaning 'to draw near', also means more specifically 'to (draw near to the altar to) receive the eucharist'. In support of this he quotes (on p. 298, in the wake of some editorial mishap twice) a passage from the Kitabu 1-'agani) in which the Arabic verb taqarraba is used unambiguously to mean 'receive the (Christian) eucharist'. But this alleged confirmation scuppers the author's argument. The (actually well-known) Christian Arabic technical term taqarraba is indeed a calque on Syriac eQkarrab, with the same stem formation, i.e., D-stem with prefix t(a)-. There is no good reason to assume that the same Syriac verb was 'borrowed' a second time as the (differently formed) stem iqtaraba.

The examples that I have quoted could be expanded manyfold, but they are perhaps enough. They illustrate what is actually the less controversial, or in any case less fantastical part of the author's line of argument, the part, namely, in which he applies his 'Syro-Aramaic reading' to the actual traditional text of the Qur'an. But this book goes a lot further. Having established (as he thinks) that the Qur'an is composed in an Aramaic-Arabic 'mixed language' the author proceeds to juggle the diacritic points of the traditional text to create an entirely new Qur' an which he then attempts to decipher with the help of his (as we have observed, often very shaky) knowledge of Syriac. I do not really think that there is very much point in discussing this aspect of the book. There is no doubt that, without the diacritical points, the Qur'an is indeed an extremely obscure work and that the possibility of repointing affords virtually limitless opportunities to reinterpret the scripture, in Arabic or in any other language that one chooses. I think, however, that any reader who wants to take the trouble to plough through Luxenberg's 'new reading' of any of the numerous passages discussed in this book will concede that the 'new reading' does not actually make better sense than a straight classical Arabic reading of the traditional text. It is a reading that is potentially attractive only in its novelty, or shall I say its perversity, not in that it sheds any light on the meaning of the book or on the history of Islam.

It is necessary, in conclusion to say a little about the authorship, or rather the non-authorship, the pseudonymity of this book. An article published in the New York Times on 2nd March 2002 (and subsequently broadly disseminated in the internet) referred to this book as the work of 'Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in Germany'. It is, I think, sufficiently clear from this review that the person in question is not 'a scholar of ancient Semitic languages'. He is someone who evidently speaks some Arabic dialect, has a passable, but not flawless command of classical Arabic, knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary, but is innocent of any real understanding of the methodology of comparative Semitic linguistics. His book is not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism.

Alaikoam Salam

It is true the Arabic spoken and written at the time of the Prophet (PBUM) could have differed slightly as with time everything does change and evolve.

However when the Prophet (PBUH) recited the Quran four or more scribes wrote it down for him.

So there was a written copy of the Quran in his time.

It was one of the Imams who actually sorted it into the way it is now though I forget who.

The Prophet (PBUH) never sorted the Surah's himself as far as I know, though he may have said this Surah goes before or after that Surah.

The hadeath is different many of the hadeath was written after the Prophet's (PBUH) death and their are some who question the validity of some of those hadeath.

Many women of the Prophet's (PBUH) household were instrumental in relating the hadeaths to historians of Islam.

Salam

Anne Marie

There is some detailed discussion on this topic which you can find at:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html

From Alphonse Mingana To Christoph Luxenberg: Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The Qur'an

Here an extract paragraph you can find:

"The basic premise of Luxenberg's book, namely that the Qur'an was written in a hybrid Arabic-Aramaic language and borrows from Christian Aramaic writings - is dedicated to giving examples from the Qur'an to support this premise. The argument is essentially circular. In order to document his big idea of the Qur'an being an Arabic-Aramaic document that draws on Christian Aramaic texts, he ignored whatever did not fit - a common problem with holders of grand ideas. This has resulted in him making claims that are contrary to well-established facts such as the syro-aram�ische script served as a model for the Arabic script and that the Arabic vocalization was based on the model of the earlier syro-aram�ische vocalization system.

To further his grand ideas about the Qur'an, Luxenberg claimed that Makkah was not an Arab settlement but an Aramaic colony and that the residents of Makkah spoke aram�ische-arabische Mischsprache. He also claimed that Aramaic, just before the advent of Islam, was not only the language of written communication, but also the lingua franca of that area of Western Asia"

Allah knows best
wassalam

It's too bad that Sign Reader thinks that any innovative thinking regarding Islam is the sign of a "troubled mind."

In any case, I just asked Muslims about their opinion - I did not say whether I agreed with it or not.  What a sorry inablility to engage in actual debate or discussion!

Also, it's pretty obvious why the orignator of the theory uses a pseudonym, given certain ayatollah's propensity for murderous fatwahs.

Alibaba wrote:  Please comment on Christoph Luxenberg's theory that ... "the original language of the Qur�an was not was not Arabic but something closer to Aramaic. He says the copy of the Qur�an used today is a mistranscription of the original text from Muhammad�s time, which according to Islamic tradition was destroyed by the third caliph, Osman, in the seventh century. But Arabic did not turn up as a written language until 150 years after Muhammad�s death, and most learned Arabs at that time spoke a version of Aramaic." Can you prove otherwise?  Didn't Osman destroy all the manuscripts?  How can you prove it was written in Arabic?

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

Hey Alibaba.........It seems to me that you always try to slander Islam by making false statements against Islam. How do I know? I always follow you and read your corrupt articles that slander Islam.

Here is the answer that will refute your wild allegation:

Preservation of the Quran http://www.islam-guide.com/mambo/articles/18/ - http://www.islam-guide.com/mambo/articles/18/

The entire Quran was however also recorded in writing at the time of revelation from the Prophet�s dictation, may God exalt his mention, by some of his literate companions, the most prominent of them being Zaid ibn Thabit.[1]  Others among his noble scribes were Ubayy ibn Ka�b, Ibn Mas�ud, Mu�awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan, Khalid ibn Waleed and Zubayr ibn Awwam.[2]  The verses were recorded on leather, parchment, scapulae (shoulder bones of animals) and the stalks of date palms.[3]

The codification of the Quran (i.e. into a �book form�) was done soon after the Battle of Yamamah (11AH/633CE), after the Prophet�s death, during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.  Many companions became martyrs at that battle, and it was feared that unless a written copy of the entire revelation was produced, large parts of the Quran might be lost with the death of those who had memorized it.  Therefore, at the suggestion of Umar to collect the Quran in the form of writing, Zaid ibn Thabit was requested by Abu Bakr to head a committee which would gather together the scattered recordings of the Quran and prepare a mushaf - loose sheets which bore the entire revelation on them[4].  To safeguard the compilation from errors, the committee accepted only material which had been written down in the presence of the Prophet himself, and which could be verified by at least two reliable witnesses who had actually heard the Prophet recite the passage in question[5].  Once completed and unanimously approved of by the Prophet�s Companions, these sheets were kept with the Caliph Abu Bakr (d. 13AH/634CE), then passed on to the Caliph Umar (13-23AH/634-644CE), and then Umar�s daughter and the Prophet�s widow, Hafsah[6].

The third Caliph Uthman (23AH-35AH/644-656CE) requested Hafsah to send him the manuscript of the Quran which was in her safekeeping, and ordered the production of several bounded copies of it (masaahif, sing. mushaf).  This task was entrusted to the Companions Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn Az-Zubair, Sa�eed ibn As-�As, and Abdur-Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham.[7]  Upon completion (in 25AH/646CE), Uthman returned the original manuscript to Hafsah and sent the copies to the major Islamic provinces.

��the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet�. What we have today in our hands is the mushaf of Muhammad.[8]

Kenneth Cragg describes the transmission of the Quran from the time of revelation to today as occurring in �an unbroken living sequence of devotion.�[9]  Schwally concurs that:

�As far as the various pieces of revelation are concerned, we may be confident that their text has been generally transmitted exactly as it was found in the Prophet�s legacy.�[10]

The historical credibility of the Quran is further established by the fact that one of the copies sent out by the Caliph Uthman is still in existence today.  It lies in the Museum of the City of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, Central Asia.[11]  According to Memory of the World Program, UNESCO, an arm of the United Nations, �it is the definitive version, known as the Mushaf of Uthman.�[12]

A facsimile of the mushaf in Tashkent is available at the Columbia University Library in the US.[13]  This copy is proof that the text of the Quran we have in circulation today is identical with that of the time of the Prophet and his companions.  A copy of the mushaf sent to Syria (duplicated before a fire in 1310AH/1892CE destroyed the Jaami� Masjid where it was housed) also exists in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul[14], and an early manuscript on gazelle parchment exists in Dar al-Kutub as-Sultaniyyah in Egypt.  More ancient manuscripts from all periods of Islamic history found in the Library of Congress in Washington, the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin (Ireland) and the London Museum have been compared with those in Tashkent, Turkey and Egypt, with results confirming that there have not been any changes in the text from its original time of writing.[15]

The Institute for Koranforschung, for example, in the University of Munich (Germany), collected over 42,000 complete or incomplete ancient copies of the Quran.  After around fifty years of research, they reported that there was no variance between the various copies, except the occasional mistakes of the copyist which could easily be ascertained.  This Institute was unfortunately destroyed by bombs during WWII.[16]

Thus, due to the efforts of the early companions, with God�s assistance, the Quran as we have it today is recited in the same manner as it was revealed.  This makes it the only religious scripture that is still completely retained and understood in its original language.  Indeed, as Sir William Muir states, �There is probably no other book in the world which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text.�[17]

_________________________

Hey Alibaba....I am not shocked to see your ignorant answer for it is you who write the ignorant statements to slander Islam....And now you are slandering me by saying ( I quote) 'it appears that you can't write since all you do is cut and paste'.... I am a busy man so I don't want to waste my time entertaining slanderers like you. After all the statement is enough to refute your wild allegation! Does truth hurt you badly? Yes !

I hope someday you and me will debate in the public!

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

Hey Alibaba.........It seems to me that you always try to slander Islam by making false statements against Islam. How do I know? I always follow you and read your corrupt articles that slander Islam.

Here is the answer that will refute your wild allegation:

Preservation of the Quran http://www.islam-guide.com/mambo/articles/18/ - http://www.islam-guide.com/mambo/articles/18/

The entire Quran was however also recorded in writing at the time of revelation from the Prophet�s dictation, may God exalt his mention, by some of his literate companions, the most prominent of them being Zaid ibn Thabit.[1]  Others among his noble scribes were Ubayy ibn Ka�b, Ibn Mas�ud, Mu�awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan, Khalid ibn Waleed and Zubayr ibn Awwam.[2]  The verses were recorded on leather, parchment, scapulae (shoulder bones of animals) and the stalks of date palms.[3]

The codification of the Quran (i.e. into a �book form�) was done soon after the Battle of Yamamah (11AH/633CE), after the Prophet�s death, during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.  Many companions became martyrs at that battle, and it was feared that unless a written copy of the entire revelation was produced, large parts of the Quran might be lost with the death of those who had memorized it.  Therefore, at the suggestion of Umar to collect the Quran in the form of writing, Zaid ibn Thabit was requested by Abu Bakr to head a committee which would gather together the scattered recordings of the Quran and prepare a mushaf - loose sheets which bore the entire revelation on them[4].  To safeguard the compilation from errors, the committee accepted only material which had been written down in the presence of the Prophet himself, and which could be verified by at least two reliable witnesses who had actually heard the Prophet recite the passage in question[5].  Once completed and unanimously approved of by the Prophet�s Companions, these sheets were kept with the Caliph Abu Bakr (d. 13AH/634CE), then passed on to the Caliph Umar (13-23AH/634-644CE), and then Umar�s daughter and the Prophet�s widow, Hafsah[6].

The third Caliph Uthman (23AH-35AH/644-656CE) requested Hafsah to send him the manuscript of the Quran which was in her safekeeping, and ordered the production of several bounded copies of it (masaahif, sing. mushaf).  This task was entrusted to the Companions Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn Az-Zubair, Sa�eed ibn As-�As, and Abdur-Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham.[7]  Upon completion (in 25AH/646CE), Uthman returned the original manuscript to Hafsah and sent the copies to the major Islamic provinces.

��the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet�. What we have today in our hands is the mushaf of Muhammad.[8]

Kenneth Cragg describes the transmission of the Quran from the time of revelation to today as occurring in �an unbroken living sequence of devotion.�[9]  Schwally concurs that:

�As far as the various pieces of revelation are concerned, we may be confident that their text has been generally transmitted exactly as it was found in the Prophet�s legacy.�[10]

The historical credibility of the Quran is further established by the fact that one of the copies sent out by the Caliph Uthman is still in existence today.  It lies in the Museum of the City of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, Central Asia.[11]  According to Memory of the World Program, UNESCO, an arm of the United Nations, �it is the definitive version, known as the Mushaf of Uthman.�[12]

A facsimile of the mushaf in Tashkent is available at the Columbia University Library in the US.[13]  This copy is proof that the text of the Quran we have in circulation today is identical with that of the time of the Prophet and his companions.  A copy of the mushaf sent to Syria (duplicated before a fire in 1310AH/1892CE destroyed the Jaami� Masjid where it was housed) also exists in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul[14], and an early manuscript on gazelle parchment exists in Dar al-Kutub as-Sultaniyyah in Egypt.  More ancient manuscripts from all periods of Islamic history found in the Library of Congress in Washington, the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin (Ireland) and the London Museum have been compared with those in Tashkent, Turkey and Egypt, with results confirming that there have not been any changes in the text from its original time of writing.[15]

The Institute for Koranforschung, for example, in the University of Munich (Germany), collected over 42,000 complete or incomplete ancient copies of the Quran.  After around fifty years of research, they reported that there was no variance between the various copies, except the occasional mistakes of the copyist which could easily be ascertained.  This Institute was unfortunately destroyed by bombs during WWII.[16]

Thus, due to the efforts of the early companions, with God�s assistance, the Quran as we have it today is recited in the same manner as it was revealed.  This makes it the only religious scripture that is still completely retained and understood in its original language.  Indeed, as Sir William Muir states, �There is probably no other book in the world which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text.�[17]

Alibaba,

What is the intent of starting this topic? Are you here to engage in a dialogue to learn about Islam, or you only want to bring stuff from anti-Islam sources to discredit Islam?

Peace

Alibaba wrote: It's too bad that Sign Reader thinks that any innovative thinking regarding Islam is the sign of a "troubled mind." In any case, I just asked Muslims about their opinion - I did not say whether I agreed with it or not.  What a sorry inablility to engage in actual debate or discussion! Also, it's pretty obvious why the orignator of the theory uses a pseudonym, given certain ayatollah's propensity for murderous fatwahs.

12:2 We have sent it down as an arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.

 13:37 Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah.

 16:103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is arabic, pure and clear.

 
20:113 Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him).

26:195 In the perspicuous arabic tongue.

 
39:28 (It is) a Qur'an in arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil.

 41:3 A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in arabic, for people who understand;-

41:44 Had We sent this as a Qur'an (in the language) other than arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in arabic and (a Messenger an Arab?" Say: "It is a Guide and a Healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes): They are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!"

 
42:7 Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an arabic Qur'an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her,- and warn (them) of the Day of Assembly, of which there is no doubt: (when) some will be in the Garden, and some in the Blazing Fire.


43:3 We have made it a Qur'an in arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom).

 
46:12 And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: And this Book confirms (it) in the arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right.

Alibaba wrote: 

according to Islamic tradition was destroyed by the third caliph, Osman, in the seventh century.

What Islamic tradition ? you must be under the spell of some secular Shia's propaganda-- them being the followers of Ali only sect have been preached as such. Whoever says that is may be a Shia but not a Muslim.

But Arabic did not turn up as a written language until 150 years after Muhammad�s death, and most learned Arabs at that time spoke a version of Aramaic."

It is akin to Americans' thinking in the sixtees that China didn't exist or mattered and see what happened.

Either you are living a too sheltered a life not knowing beyond your nose or are too narrow minded or embarrassed to accept the fact of the recorded history that the great Caliph Umar smashed both of the super powers (Romans and Persians) of the time within a decade of the Prophets passing. You  are  saying he didn't have a written language to  run his empire extending from mediterranean to India !!! You need to get your head screwed on right-- talk about innovative thinking

By the way the Salman Rushdie is still living with you--What are you complaining about the Ayatullah? There is  another den of anti islamic thieves near you--The School of Oriental and African Studies, you might visit them and get more rotten fabrications to throw in Muslims' faces. These Europeans can't get over the fact that how the colored childrens of Hagar got to have the most successful prophet of all times--they bad mouth them every chance they get to do it.

Time to go to bed CYA

Sign*Reader,

That was a good one.

I always thank God Almighty that my "slave-girl" and dear mother Hagar had only one son.

I also thank God Almighty that Essau and Jacob, the twins were born to Issac and Rebecca, not Isma'eel.

Otherwise it would have been too much to bear!   I am so glad that Isma'eel had no brother, otherwise he would have lost his birth-right for just a bowl of red beans soup or a burnt leg of lamb. 

Best Regards & Salaam Alaikum

BMZ