To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent: Sat, 05 May 2001 06:29:16 -0000
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Istiqlal] Re: Bukti bahwa Al Qur'an ditulis saat Nabi SAW
masih hidup
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Semua ini Ridha, tidak membantah apa yang saya katakan: tidak
> > ada seorangpun di mukabumi ini yang bisa membuktikan bahwa
> > al-Mushaf yang ada sekarang sama isinya dengan catatan asli.
>
>
> IMHO, kita bisa membuktikannya dengan menganalisa catatan sejarah /
> authentic of historical records, bagaimana proses penghapalannya,
> pengumpulan manuscript/suhufnya, pembukuan mushafnya, sampai proses
> reproduksi, percetakan, dan distribution to the public, dari zaman
> dulu sampai zaman sekarang.
>
Yang saya maksud dengan "catatan asli" dithread ini adalah
catatan yang ada di atas palapah korma, batu, kulit onta, kulit
kambing atau tulang yang telah dibakar atas perintah Usman.
> Kalau mau bukti hard evidences on the oldest manuscripts, tulisan
> br.Robert Squire (on refuting Joseph Smith, a missionary) di bawah
> ini mungkin bermanfaat to shed a light on this issue... This is based
> on the discussion on soc.religion.islam where br.Daniel Lomax
> involved in the discussion long time ago.
>
> --Ridha
>
>
> Manuscript Evidence
>
> The first point that we need to highlight is that the absence of
> manuscripts does not prove that the Qur'an in the hands of the
> Muslims is not the Qur'an that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammed.
> Secondly, the existence of early documentary evidence does not
> actually prove that these were the words spoken by Muhammed, or
> indeed any other historical character. Although this is something
> that Western historian like, or indeed demand, it is in fact not
> necessarily that reliable. The Muslims of the earliest generations,
> including that of the Prophet, indeed the Prophet himself considered
> writing a useful tool, both of preservation and reference, but it has
> never been accepted as sufficient in and off itself. An example of
> this is when Umar ibn al Khattab was approached by a group of Jews
> from Khaibar claiming that they had a document from the Prophet
> guaranteeing their right to stay. Umar rejected it, claiming it was a
> fake on the basis that it contradicted what was orally transmitted
> from the Prophet on the issue. This highlights three issues of
> benefit to our discussion. First the possibility of forgery of a
> document, even though contemperious and secondly the benefit and need
> for a sound chain of oral transmission, and thirdly that hostile
> parties certainly do not formulate a more reliable source of
> information.
>
> Early Qur'anic Manuscripts in our Possession
>
> Most of the early original Qur'an manuscripts with us now date from
> after the 2nd century. There are however a number of odd fragments of
> Qur'anic papyri which date from the 1st century as mentioned in Die
> Entstehung des Qur'an. There is also a complete Qur'an in the
> Egyptian National Library on parchment made from gazelle skin which
> has been dated 68AH.
>
> Narrations differ as to how many copies were directly ordered and
> sent out by the Caliph 'Uthman, but they range from four to seven. It
> seems certain from various Muslim historical sources that several
> were lost, through fire amongst other things. There are four copies
> that are attributed to Uthman.
>
> 1) The Tashkent manuscript.
>
> It seems that the copy in Tashkent also known as the Samarkand
> manuscript may be the "Imam" manuscript which Uthman kept for himself
> and was killed while reading it. A book has been written called
> Tarikh al Mushaf al Uthman fi Tashkent by Makhdun in which he gives a
> number of reasons for the authenticity of the manuscript;
>
> 1. The mushaf is written in a script used in the first 50 years of
> Hijra.
> 2. It is written on parchment made from gazelle.
>
> 3. There are no diacritical marks which is indicative of early
> manuscripts.
>
> 4. It does not have the vowelling marks which were introduced by
> Du'ali who died in AH68 suggesting that it is earlier than this.
>
> As for Smith's objections to the Tashkent document, then concerning
> the presence of illuminations between the surahs, this does not
> necessarily mean that it is not the Uthmanic manuscript. Two other
> possibilities present themselves: a) that these medallions were used
> from an early time, and b) they were added at a later date.
> Secondly, the irregularity of the codex also suggests two
> possibilities a) as suggested by Lomax, that the manuscripts have
> been repaired as the pages disintegrated or b) the document was
> originally written by several different scribes.
>
> As for the difference between the Samarkand and Tashkent manuscripts
> in terms of the number of lines per page, etc., then these are not
> arguments that in any way disprove the early dating of these
> manuscripts or their attribution to the scribes working under Zaid
> ibn Thabit.
>
> Smith further exposes his ignorance when he talks about the various
> scripts.
>
> The Kufic Script
>
> To begin with the quote of a Muslim, al-Kalkashandi, he maintains
> (Kitab al-A'sha 3/p.15) that Kufic is said to have been the earliest
> script from which the others developed, he writes: "The Arabic script
> (khatt) is the one which is now known as Kufic. From it evolved all
> the present pens." This is a very profound statement as its findings
> differ greatly from Smith's assertions! Though Nabia Abbott's
> conclusions perhaps may not go so far as to agree ad totum with this
> conclusion we find that she does say: " . . . the Muslim tradition
> that the original Arabic script was Kufic (that is, Hiran or Anbaran)
> is one of those statements which, though known to be half wrong, may
> yet be half right." [Abbott, Rise and Development, p.17]
>
> The terms that came to be applied to these scripts by early Arabs
> themselves could not have the chronological significance that some
> later Arabs and most Western writers have put to them. For is it the
> case that the name of a thing (e.g. Kufic) necessarily indicates its
> ultimate origin? The fact is that the script which later came to be
> known as Kufic has its origin far earlier than the founding of the
> town of Kufah. Atiq Siddiqui writes: "The Kufic or the angular
> variety of the Arabic script, has been traced about a hundred years
> before the foundation of the town Kufa, 638CE (AH17) to which place
> the style owes its name." [Siddiqui, The Story of Islamic
> Calligraphy, p.9] That is to say, the town was founded in AH17, and
> the Kufic style originated 100 years before that time! Where does
> this leave Smith's theory? This conclusion is agreed upon by other
> writers; we read in The Splendour of Islamic Calligraphy: "However,
> Kufic script cannot have originated in Kufa, since that city was
> founded in 17/638, and the Kufic script is known to have existed
> before that date." [Sijelmasi and Khatibi, The Splendour of Islamic
> Calligraphy, p.97]
>
> Smith's arbitrary dating of the origins of this script also
> contradicts early coin and rock inscriptions which have been
> commented upon by Western writers, some of them being:
>
> 31 A. H.
>
> Tombstone of Abdar-Rahman ibn Khair al-Hajari
>
> Nabia Abbott writes: "The earliest Muslim inscription, the tombstone
> of Abdar-Rahman ibn Khair al-Hajari, dated 31/652 . . . It is
> certainly not Makkan and can safely be considered as poor Kufic."
> [Abbott, Rise and Development, p.19]
>
> Pre-93 A. H.
>
> The milestone, dated from the time of the Caliph Abdal-Malik (reign
> 685 - 705CE), written in Kufic script. [see Welch, Calligraphy in the
> Arts of the Muslim World, p.44]
>
> 107 A. H.
>
> Umayyad coin, minted in Damascus, inscribed in early Kufic script.
> The inscription reads: "There is none worthy of worship but Allah, He
> is One and has no partner" [British Museum, Room 34]
>
> 108 A. H.
>
> Umayyad coin, minted at Wasit, Iraq, inscribed in early Kufic script.
> The inscription reads: "There is none worthy of worship but Allah, He
> is One and has no partner" [British Museum, Room 34]
>
> These dates alone are from between 60 years to 140 years before the
> period to which Smith alludes!
>
> Smith insists that if the Qur'an had in fact been first compiled in
> the Hijaz during the Caliphate of Uthman then it we should expect it
> have been written in one of two other script's, amongst which he
> names the Mashq script. Little does he realise that the Mashq script
> itself had its origins in the same region (Iraq) as the Kufic. Why
> should then the Kufic script be excluded from its usage especially
> now that we have shown its early origin?
>
> Baladhuri's account of the origins and spread of the North Arabic
> script [Futuh al-Buldaan, pp.471-74] points, as do other sources, to
> Hirah as the seat of the North Arabic script by the close of the 5th
> century. What is of note here is that it is the Hiran (or Anbaran)
> script which later came to be classified as the Kufic. Abbott
> writes: " . . . Kufah and Basrah did not start their careers as
> Muslim cities until the second decade of Islam But these cities were
> located closer to Anbar and Hirah in Irak, Kufah being but a few
> miles south of Hirah. We have already seen the major role the two
> earlier cities played in the evolution of Arabic writing, and it is
> but natural to expect them to have developed a characteristic script
> to which the newer cities of Kufah and Basrah fell heir, so that for
> Kufic and Basran script one is tempted to substitute Anbaran and
> Hiran . . . our study so far shows that the script of Hirah must have
> been the leading script in the 6th century and as such must have
> influenced all later scripts, including the Makkan - Madinan." [Nabia
> Abbott, Rise and Development, pp.6-7]
>
> The city of Kufah therefore inherited and took on the script which
> was already prevailing in Hirah. The script, as we have mentioned,
> which was later to be titled as Kufic.
>
> Baladhuri states further that Bishr ibn Abdul-Malik, a Christian,
> used to frequent Hirah, where he learned to write Arabic. Later Bishr
> came to Makkah and taught the writing there. Abbott in discussing the
> Makkan, Madinan, Kufic and Basran scripts highlights that: " . . .
> one need hardly expect any spectacular variations in the scripts of
> these four leading cities, for as we have already seen, increased
> activities in writing in Makkah and Madinah date from the days of
> Bishr (note: approx 500CE), who avowedly taught the script he had
> himself learned in Hirah. Thus a fundamental similarity of the four
> scripts is to be expected." [Abbott, ibid, p.18]
>
> The use, therefore, of a script which was later recognised as Kufic
> in the Hijaz during the time of the Prophet and after is no surprise
> since Bishr, who himself had learnt this script from its point of
> origin in Hirah, had already begun to teach it in the Hijaz some 100
> years earlier!
>
> Smith also argues that it is the view of both Martin Lings and Yasin
> Safadi that the Kufic script 'did not appear until late into the
> eighth century (790's and later)'. It is difficult to see how this
> view can be ascribed to Safadi, because he himself, in his work
> Islamic Calligraphy (p.11), details the tombstone from the period of
> the Caliph Abdal-Malik (see above) which he describes as being in the
> Kufic script. This is a minimum of 80 years before the date which
> Smith ascribes to Safadi. Safadi writes: "The Kufic script, which
> reached perfection in the second half of the eight century . . . "
> [ibid, p.10]. Can we then assume from this, taking into account the
> previous evidence, that Safadi held the belief that the script first
> originated at this time? No, rather he is clearly stating that it is
> here when it reached its 'perfection'. Martin Lings and Safadi again
> arrive at a similar conclusion for their book in honour of the 1976
> Qur'an exhibition at the British Museum (p.12)!
>
> Smith is found to be not only incorrect in his dating of the origins
> of the Kufic script, but also erroneous in his opinion that Kufic is
> not a script that we would expect to have been employed in the Hijaz
> during the Caliphate of Uthman. In respect to Lings and Safadi, he
> has merely misread their claims.
>
> To conclude, Abbot thinks that the Uthmanic Qur'an's probably were in
> Makka-Madini scripts " . . . yet when these Qur'ans were written Kufa
> was already in the foreground, and indeed, even before the edition of
> Uthman was undertaken, prominent Kufans were working on a similar,
> though non-official project. Furthermore Sa'id ibn al Kais, a member
> of Zaid's Qur'an committee, was at the same time governor of Kuffa."
> [Rise and Development]
>
> 2) The Topkapi manuscript.
>
> Concerning the Topkapi manuscript there is an interesting clause in
> the Treaty of Versailles Article 246: "Within six months from the
> coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to his
> majesty King of Hijaz, the original Qur'an of Caliph Uthman."
>
> It seems that the manuscript reached Istanbul but not Medina.
> However, again, the suggestion is that it is actually just after the
> first century.
>
> Sheikh Mohammed Shaibanee from the Revival of Islamic Heritage
> Society in Kuwait certainly considers it as Uthmanic. Mohammed
> Hamidullah also seems to agree but with more caution. Martin Lings,
> amongst others, considers it second century. The reason for this late
> attribution is the development of the writing style (not script) and
> its comparative sophistication suggests a later period that the first
> century
>
> 3) The Islamic Museum in Istanbul.
>
> This again does not seem to be an original Uthmanic manuscript, but
> the oldest copy from the original. It is written in Makki script, and
> is almost certainly before the end of the first century.
>
> 4) Hussain mosque in Cairo.
>
> This is the oldest of all the manuscripts, and is either original or
> an exact copy from the original with similarity to the Madini script.
>
> There are also other Qur'ans attributed to Uthman.
>
> Ibn Nadim and Ibn Ain Aba claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib wrote three
> Qur'ans of which there is one in Dar al Qutb, Najaf in Iraq and it
> has written on it "Ali ibn Abi Talib wrote it in the year 40H", one
> in Egypt and one in Iran. It seems almost impossible that the Iman
> Riba manuscript in Iran is actually written by the hand of Ali
> because the script, although developed at his time, would not have
> been learnt by him since the dissentions in his rule kept him too
> busy to be able to learn such an art. It is however possible that he
> ordered someone else to write it.
>
> The most significant Qur'an attributed to Ali ibn Talib is that in
> the Hussain Mosque in Egypt. The writing is early Kufic, it has many
> similarities to Madini, which is the form of writing that Ali would
> have used. It could well be Ali's own writing.
>
> There is also existing Qur'anic writings attributed to Hassan and
> Hussain and Zain al Abideen (sons of Ali ibn Talib.). There are also
> other Qur'ans such as the one attributed to Hajjaj ibn Muwawiya dated
> AH49 and Ukba ibn Amir dated AH52 in Turkey. More information on this
> topic can be found in Tarikh al Khatim al Arabi of Dr Salah ud Din al
> Munjid from where these details have been extracted.
>
> It is also worth mentioning that there is no deviation in these
> manuscripts from the Qur'an in our possession today.
>
> The "Institute fur Koranforschung" of the University of Munich,
> Germany, had collected and collated some 42,000 complete or
> incomplete copies of the Qur'an, gathered from all over the world.
> After some fifty years of study they reported that in terms of
> differences between the various copies there were no variants, except
> occasional mistakes of copyists which could easily be ascertained.
> The institute was destroyed by American bombs during the Second World
> War.
>
> (http://www.muslim-answers.org/expo-02.htm)
>
Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
