In Search of the Original Koran: The True History of the Revealed Text by Mondher Sfar
Authors: Mondher Sfar
Ads: Link
manuscript bearing the date 94 H/712 CE, which corresponds with the reign of Walid I (705-715 CE), successor to Abd al-Malik. Herzfeld also signals two other copies dated 102 and 107.9 If these mentions were authentic, we would have here the most ancient Koranic manuscripts that are dated. They might in fact correspond to manuscripts in "Hedjazian" writing in the Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris (BNP no. 326). The manuscripts discovered in the Great Mosque of Sanaa in 1972 remain still more difficult to date, as admitted by Count von Bothmer, one of the specialists who has studied them. Only one fragment among the twelve thousand that were found bears a date: "Ramadan 357/August 968,"10 which is far from resolving the problem of dating the oldest fragments.
In summary, at the present time there remains no trace of the state of the Koran as it existed before the end of the first century of the Hijra, or a little later, which brings us back to the reign of Walid ibn Abd al-Malik (705-715), the era of the last shaping of the Koran attributed to the governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj.
Lacking the ancient manuscripts of the first century of the Hijra, the historian must be content with the testimony that has come down to us. But here again, a new disappointment awaits us, for practically all the works that flourished shortly before the end of the Umayyad dynasty dealing with the differences between the compendiums (ikhtilaf al-masahi) of the Koran have in fact disappeared. These were comparative studies of the state of the Koranic text as it was practiced (especially orally) in the great regions of the Muslim Empire: Arabia, Syria, and Iraq. One of the oldest books of which we know was written by Ibn Amir al-Yahsubi (died in 118 H/736 CE); one of the last works on the Korans was by Ibn Ashta al-Isfahan (died in 360 H/970 CE). However, only the book by Ibn Abi Dawud (died in 316 H/928 CE) has come down to us. Our knowledge of these works actually comes via citations that later authors inserted into either their commentaries on the Koran, into works on Koranic readings (gira'at), or else into treatises on grammar, and so on.
In addition, Tradition has arranged things so that what has filtered down to us are only minor variants. This was admitted by a writer of the fourth century, Abu Hayyan: he had not cited in his work those Koranic variants that were too far removed from the "Uthmanian" text." This historiographic fact is of the highest importance, if one links it to the information we do have on the persecutions suffered by all those who obstinately continued to use noncanonical variants, as was the case with Ibn Shanabudh (245-328).
The traditionalist thesis about the Uthmanian collection is only a fantastic reconstruction, hiding a reality that people sought to erase from human memory: the Koran is multiple because its text has a history and thus presents an evolution, as well as variations over time. And this history was only possible because it was in the nature of the redaction of the text that would eventually become the Koran to take the routes of elaboration, composition, stylization, and rectification. In short, it was the product of a historical elaboration (divine or human, it does not matter), and not a dictation carried out on the basis of a preexisting text, definitive and ready to be published. From the time of the prophecy, the divine word had to be shaped, a task that was incumbent on scribes, and it is this operation that later generations have tried to erase, in order to give a simplified and more-reassuring image of the Koranic message, that of a text composed by God in person.
The principal and the most decisive lesson that one should draw from the information we do have on these ancient Koranic corpuses claimed to be noncanonical is that they are essentially comparable to the text of our vulgate called "Uthmanian": the works do not contain much variation except for details, neither in their structure,
In summary, at the present time there remains no trace of the state of the Koran as it existed before the end of the first century of the Hijra, or a little later, which brings us back to the reign of Walid ibn Abd al-Malik (705-715), the era of the last shaping of the Koran attributed to the governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj.
Lacking the ancient manuscripts of the first century of the Hijra, the historian must be content with the testimony that has come down to us. But here again, a new disappointment awaits us, for practically all the works that flourished shortly before the end of the Umayyad dynasty dealing with the differences between the compendiums (ikhtilaf al-masahi) of the Koran have in fact disappeared. These were comparative studies of the state of the Koranic text as it was practiced (especially orally) in the great regions of the Muslim Empire: Arabia, Syria, and Iraq. One of the oldest books of which we know was written by Ibn Amir al-Yahsubi (died in 118 H/736 CE); one of the last works on the Korans was by Ibn Ashta al-Isfahan (died in 360 H/970 CE). However, only the book by Ibn Abi Dawud (died in 316 H/928 CE) has come down to us. Our knowledge of these works actually comes via citations that later authors inserted into either their commentaries on the Koran, into works on Koranic readings (gira'at), or else into treatises on grammar, and so on.
In addition, Tradition has arranged things so that what has filtered down to us are only minor variants. This was admitted by a writer of the fourth century, Abu Hayyan: he had not cited in his work those Koranic variants that were too far removed from the "Uthmanian" text." This historiographic fact is of the highest importance, if one links it to the information we do have on the persecutions suffered by all those who obstinately continued to use noncanonical variants, as was the case with Ibn Shanabudh (245-328).
The traditionalist thesis about the Uthmanian collection is only a fantastic reconstruction, hiding a reality that people sought to erase from human memory: the Koran is multiple because its text has a history and thus presents an evolution, as well as variations over time. And this history was only possible because it was in the nature of the redaction of the text that would eventually become the Koran to take the routes of elaboration, composition, stylization, and rectification. In short, it was the product of a historical elaboration (divine or human, it does not matter), and not a dictation carried out on the basis of a preexisting text, definitive and ready to be published. From the time of the prophecy, the divine word had to be shaped, a task that was incumbent on scribes, and it is this operation that later generations have tried to erase, in order to give a simplified and more-reassuring image of the Koranic message, that of a text composed by God in person.
The principal and the most decisive lesson that one should draw from the information we do have on these ancient Koranic corpuses claimed to be noncanonical is that they are essentially comparable to the text of our vulgate called "Uthmanian": the works do not contain much variation except for details, neither in their structure,
Similar Books
