In Search of the Original Koran: The True History of the Revealed Text by Mondher Sfar Page B
Authors: Mondher Sfar
Ads: Link
corrections in the margins. Some variants are worth remembering. The name "Allah" is sometimes replaced in the Samarkand manuscript by the pronoun hu (-wwa), as in verses 2:284 (ms. of S. 90) and 3:78 (ms. of S. 109). Sometimes, it is omitted, as in 2:283 (ms. of S. 89) and 5:119 (ms. of S. 252). In 3:37, it is the expression "inna Allah" that disappears from the manuscript (p. 92), without harming the comprehension of the text. Note also the variant of verse 3:146 (ms. of S. 134) that speaks of "what [Muhammad] (ma asabahu) underwent" in the course of the battle of Uhud, whereas the vulgate speaks of "what [his companions] underwent (ma asabahum)." It seems we have in this manuscript the first version of the text that alludes to the severe wounds the Prophet received during this battle, a vulnerability that would have provoked doubts in the minds of a certain number of his companions (see verses 3:146-47).
Moreover, this manuscript gives us interesting clues concerning the history of the composition of the verses. Like the most ancient manuscripts, our manuscript does not demarcate verses in certain parts, and elsewhere only for sets of five or ten verses. These hesitations are very probably due to the fact that the manuscript is composed of fragments from different dates. But a quick comparison of the manuscript with our vulgate shows us a phenomenon worthy of interest. In three cases of verses-6:91, 6:128, and 7:25-where the vulgate signals the end of the verse by adding the conjunction wa (and) at the start of the following verse, this is absent in our manuscript. On the other hand, we find an inverse case (3:113), where it is the vulgate that suppresses the wa at the start of the verse, although it is part of the phrase in the manuscript. We also find some of the Seven "Readings" also omitting the wa at the start of certain verses, contrary to the vulgate. This relation between the presence and absence of the sign of the end of the verse and of the coordinating conjunction would merit a study that would shed more light on the history of how the Koranic texts came to be enduringly divided into verses. But we may deduce from the preceding that this division of the text into verses necessitated a readjustment of the text to adapt it better to its new recitatory dynamic.
Can Muslim orthodoxy continue to claim a literal and compositional authenticity for the Koran? The Koran itself, as we have seen, invalidates such a claim. Koranic doctrine in this respect is quite clear: the divine message has no single form but corresponds to two distinct realities, the original and the copy. The original is designated in the Koran by the precise term kitab, and this writing was consigned to a heavenly tablet (lawh), well guarded by and near to God. As for the copy, it is an emanation and an extract from this original and results from a chain of transmitting agents: Gabriel, Muhammad, and the scribes, as well as secretaries assigned to the shaping of the revealed statements. Above all, we have seen that it was by an act of inspiration (wahy) that the passage of the kitab to the qur'an was realized, and not by a simple reproduction of a text.
At no time has the Koran claimed a literal identity between the revealed text and its divine source. This is so evident that even the two myths imagined by orthodoxy in order to prove the authenticity of the Koran remain scarcely convincing. It was effectively claimed that the archangel Gabriel had adopted the habit, every year during the month of Ramadan, of taking stock of the revealed text: correcting it, putting into order the verses revealed during the preceding year, and also eliminating verses said to be abrogated. In short, here we have work of a scribal nature that people have attempted to impute to a divine authority in order to legitimate it. The other myth attributed the communication of the revealed text to two successive stages: first, the text of the Koran came down in its
Moreover, this manuscript gives us interesting clues concerning the history of the composition of the verses. Like the most ancient manuscripts, our manuscript does not demarcate verses in certain parts, and elsewhere only for sets of five or ten verses. These hesitations are very probably due to the fact that the manuscript is composed of fragments from different dates. But a quick comparison of the manuscript with our vulgate shows us a phenomenon worthy of interest. In three cases of verses-6:91, 6:128, and 7:25-where the vulgate signals the end of the verse by adding the conjunction wa (and) at the start of the following verse, this is absent in our manuscript. On the other hand, we find an inverse case (3:113), where it is the vulgate that suppresses the wa at the start of the verse, although it is part of the phrase in the manuscript. We also find some of the Seven "Readings" also omitting the wa at the start of certain verses, contrary to the vulgate. This relation between the presence and absence of the sign of the end of the verse and of the coordinating conjunction would merit a study that would shed more light on the history of how the Koranic texts came to be enduringly divided into verses. But we may deduce from the preceding that this division of the text into verses necessitated a readjustment of the text to adapt it better to its new recitatory dynamic.
Can Muslim orthodoxy continue to claim a literal and compositional authenticity for the Koran? The Koran itself, as we have seen, invalidates such a claim. Koranic doctrine in this respect is quite clear: the divine message has no single form but corresponds to two distinct realities, the original and the copy. The original is designated in the Koran by the precise term kitab, and this writing was consigned to a heavenly tablet (lawh), well guarded by and near to God. As for the copy, it is an emanation and an extract from this original and results from a chain of transmitting agents: Gabriel, Muhammad, and the scribes, as well as secretaries assigned to the shaping of the revealed statements. Above all, we have seen that it was by an act of inspiration (wahy) that the passage of the kitab to the qur'an was realized, and not by a simple reproduction of a text.
At no time has the Koran claimed a literal identity between the revealed text and its divine source. This is so evident that even the two myths imagined by orthodoxy in order to prove the authenticity of the Koran remain scarcely convincing. It was effectively claimed that the archangel Gabriel had adopted the habit, every year during the month of Ramadan, of taking stock of the revealed text: correcting it, putting into order the verses revealed during the preceding year, and also eliminating verses said to be abrogated. In short, here we have work of a scribal nature that people have attempted to impute to a divine authority in order to legitimate it. The other myth attributed the communication of the revealed text to two successive stages: first, the text of the Koran came down in its
Similar Books
