jawab dengan enteng, tunggu saja Seri 729 hari Ahad, 28 Mei 2006 yad.
Oh, oh, apa Ari Condro bisa tulis artikel ttg hermeneutika, bisa kagak.
Oh, oh, ana tanya apa itu pengecer, Abah jawab juga dengan enteng yaitu yang
ngumpul data sekunder
Oh, oh ana tanya apa contohnya? Abah beri contoh, itu penulis buku
Metodologi Bibel: dan penulis artikel Pengaruh Metodologi Bibel Terhadap
Studi Alquran mengecer mengenai data ttg Arthur Jeffery yang diforward
Ikhwah spb:
Introduction
Before we begin it is a nice idea to introduce Arthur Jeffery. He was an
Australian-American Orientalist who conducted research on various aspects of
the Qur'ân. Among his works the most celebrated is his Materials For The
History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân: The Old Codices.
Along with his important work on Biblical studies, he pursued his research
on the Qur'ân while serving in Cairo, Egypt, as the director of the American
Research Centre, as a Professor of Semitic languages at Columbia University,
and as an adjunct Professor at the Union Theological Seminary. Besides his
studies on variant readings, he wrote on topics such as foreign vocabulary
in the Qur'ân (The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Qur'ân: 1938, Arthur Jeffery,
Oriental Institute, Baroda). He also translated selected surahs of the
Qur'ân and devised a new arrangement to establish 'development in Muhammad's
thought' (The Koran - Selected Suras: 1958, Arthur Jeffery, Heritage Press,
New York). Professor Jeffery belongs to that section of Orientalists who, in
post-colonial times, shifted from textual and philological studies and,
unlike their predecessors, had no chance to act as advisor to the colonial
masters of Muslim Asia and Africa.
Arthur Jeffery also holds the dubious distinction of calling Muhammad(P) a
robber chief, second only to Professor David Margoliouth.[1] Jeffery says:
At Medina, he was what might justly call a robber chief, just as David, King
of Israel, was in his early days.[2]
All this was done to compare and contrast Muhammad(P) with the "life of our
Lord."[3] Hallmark of a true Christian indeed! If he has so much hatred for
the Prophet(P) of Islam, how is that one can expect him to be objective in
his criticism of what was revealed to him?
This chapter will deal with Professor Arthur Jeffery's work on the Qur'ân
and would also discuss what Gilchrist would not like the readers of his book
to know, i.e., how Arthur Jeffery reaches the conclusion about the rival
Codices and variants in his book as well as other issues on the collection
of variant readings.
Jeffery published the book Materials For The History Of The Text Of The
Qur'ân: The Old Codices in 1937 which contains an impressive body of
material dealing with the variant readings of the Qur'ân in the Companion
codices. A part of the work was taken from Kitâb al-Masâhif of Ibn Abî
Dâwûd. The most striking feature of this book is the regularity with which
the reader encounters _expression_ of Jeffery's scepticism concerning the
reports of the variant readings. This is due to the fact that sufficient
material
... has not survived to enable us to get a real picture of the text of any
of the pre-cUthmânic codices. [4]
Jeffery On The First Collection Of Abû Bakr: The Art Of Juggling Words
Orientalism and juggling of words are synonymous. Jeffery is no exception to
this. The evidence that we have concerning the first collection of the
Qur'ân by Abû Bakr is authentic and strongly supported by the Islamic
history. In spite of this evidence, the image of the Christian
ecclesiastical history, with which the Christian missionaries are much more
familiar, seems to have obsessed Jeffery to such a degree that he has, in
his book, transposed it almost entirely to the Islamic terrain. In fact, he
has tried to show that in the Qur'ânic text there is a certain evolution
resembling in many ways the evolution in the text of the Gospels.
The first one to start off with is denying the official character of the
first collection of the Qur'ân by Abû Bakr:
That Abû Bakr was one of those who collected the revelation material was
doubtless true. He may possibly have inherited material that the Prophet had
stored away in preparation of the Kitâb. That he ever made an official
recension as the orthodox theory demands is exceedingly doubtful. His
collection would have been a purely private affair, just as quite a few
number of Companions of the Prophet had made personal collections as private
affairs.[5]
A simple reminder here would be that Abû Bakr was a Caliph at the time he
ordered the first collection after the loss of reciters on the day of
Yamamah. As was the case with his predecessor Richard Bell, Jeffery failed
to camouflage his prejudiced against Qur'ân when dealing with its
compilation. Like Bell, he declares that the recension of Abû Bakr was his
own purely private affair. [6]
It is interesting to note that he accepts all the variants indicated in
Kitâb al-Masâhif as valid but ignores (without explaining why!) these same
sources assertion about Abû Bakr's official collection of the Qur'ân!
The second one is more absurd than the first. Jeffery repeated says:
...it is quite clear that the text which cUthmân canonized was only one out
of many rival texts, and we need to investigate what went before the
canonical text.[7]There can be no doubt that the text canonized by cUthmân
was only one among several types of texts in existence at the time.[8]
It is a well known fact that Abû Bakr's first collection was the basis of
the second one by cUthmân. cUthmân did not do any special collection of the
Qur'ân except faithfully reproducing the copy which was with Hafsah.
Needless to add: Zaid Ibn Thabit was involved with the collection during Abû
Bakr's time as well as cUthmân's time.
So, in depicting the cUthmân's collection as a new one, Jeffery conveniently
introduced the concept of rival Codices to the cUthmânic Codex. Now, it is
interesting to know that Ibn Abî Dâwûd nowhere uses the word rival Codex (to
cUthmânic Codex) in his work Kitâb al-Masâhif. Hence it is purely an
invention of Arthur Jeffery to push his hypothesis.
Jeffery & The Seven Ahruf
It is not very surprising that after the introduction of the concept of
rival Codices and to push this hypothesis, Jeffery went on to negate the the
evidence that the Qur'ân was revealed in seven ahruf as the hadiths given
below state:
>From Abû Hurairah:
The Messenger of God(P) said: "An All-knowing, Wise, Forgiving, Merciful
sent down the Qur'ân in seven ahruf." [9]
>From cAbdullâh Ibn Mascud:
The Messenger of God(P) said: "The Qur'ân was sent down in seven ahruf. Each
of these ahruf has an outward aspect (zahr) and an inward aspect (batn);
each of the ahruf has a border, and each border has a lookout." [10]
Jeffery shows his dubious scholarship by making a cheap excuse that:
This number Seven was connected with the well known tradition about the
Qur'ân having being revealed according to the seven ahruf, a tradition which
itself had obviously been invented to explain the variant readings of the
text known to exist.[11]
Jeffery does not know that he is contradicting his own stance. On one hand,
he is willing to believe whatever Ibn Mascud has to say concerning the
variant readings. On the other hand he is rejecting Ibn Mascud's own
testimony that the Qur'ân was revealed in seven ahruf! It is also
interesting to see the traditional sources which Jeffery uses to gather the
variant readings and they themselves say that the Qur'ân was revealed in
seven ahruf (for the full bibliography of the sources which Jeffery uses,
please see the next section).
In other words, the use of evidence by him is extremely selective, i.e.,
negate the evidence which does not suit the hypothesis.
Jeffery & The Sources Of Variant Readings
Concerning Kitâb al-Masâhif of Ibn Abi Dâwûd Jeffery says:
The number of actual variants given in this text is very small and obviously
represents only those happened to be found in his particular collection of
traditions.[12]
Jeffery's primary source of collecting the variant readings was Kitâb
al-Masâhif of Ibn Abi Dâwûd. He also collected variant readings from the
books dealing with commentary (Tafsîr), linguistics (Lugah), literature
(Adab) and reading styles (Qirâ'ât). According to Jeffery [13]:
The material which follows is taken from the writer's collections made with
a view to a critical text of the Qur'ân..... The main sources from which the
variants have been drawn are:Abû Hayyân, al-Bahar al-Muhit, 8 Volumes, Cairo
1328.Alusî, Ruh al-Macani Fi Tafsîr al-Qur'ân Wa Sab' al-Mathani, 30
Volumes, Cairo, n.d.Baghawî, Macalim at-Tanzil, 7 Volumes, Cairo
1332.Baidawî, Anwâr at-Tanzil Wa Asrar at-Tawil, 5 Prints, Cairo,
1330.Balawi, Kitâb Alîf Ba', 2 Volumes, Cairo, 1287.Banna, Ithaf Fudala
al-Bashar Ai'l-Qirâ'ât al-Arba'ata 'Ashar, Cairo, 1317.Fakhr ad-Dîn ar-Râzî,
Mafatih al-Ghaib, 8 Volumes, Cairo, 1327.Farra', Kitâb Macani al-Qur'ân, Ms.
Stambul, Nuru Osmaniya 459.Ibn al-Anbarî, Kitâb al-Insaf, Ed. Gotthold Weil,
Leiden, 1913.Ibn Hisham, Mughni al-Labîb, 2 Prints, Cairo, 1347.Ibn Hisham,
Tahdhib at-Tawadih, 2 Prints, Cairo, 1329.Ibn Jinnî, Nichtkanonische
Koranlesarten im Muhtasab des Ibn Ginni, von G Bergstrasser, Munchen,
1933.Ibn Khalawaih, Ibn Halawaihs Sammlung nichtkanonischer Koranlesarten,
Herausgegeben von G Bergstrasser, Stambul, 1934.Ibn Manzur, Lisân al-cArab,
20 Volumes, Cairo, 1307.Ibn Ya'ish, Commentary To The Mufassal, Ed., Jahn, 2
Volumes, Liepzig, 1882.Khafaji, 'Inayat al-Qadi wa Kifayat ar-Radi, 8
Volumes, Cairo, 1283.Marandî, Qurrat 'Ain al-Qurra, Ms. Escorial,
1337.Muttaqî al-Hindî, Kanz al-'Ummal, Volume 2, Hyderabad, 1312.Nasafi,
Madarik at-Tanzil wa Haqa'iq at-Ta'wil, 4 Volumes, Cairo, 1333.Nisaburî,
Ghara'ib al-Qur'ân (On The Margin Of Tafsir at-Tabari).Qunawî, Hashia calâ
l-Baidawi, 7 Volumes, Stambul, 1285.Qurtubî, al-Jâmic li Ahkam al-Qur'ân, 2
Volumes (All So Far Published), Cairo, 1935.Shawkanî, Fath al-Qadir, 5
Volumes, Cairo, 1349.Sibawaih, Le Livre de Sibawaih, Ed. Derenbourg, 2
Volumes, Paris, 1889.Suyûtî, al-Itqan fî cUlûm al-Qur'ân, Ed. Sprenger,
Calcutta, 1857.Suyûtî, ad-Durr al-Manthur fî 't-Tafsîr al-Ma'thur, 6
Volumes, Cairo, 1314.Suyûtî, al-Muzhir, 2 Volumes, Cairo, 1282.Tabarî,
al-Jâmic al-Bayân fî Tafsîr al-Qur'ân, 30 Volumes, Cairo, 1330.Tabarasi,
Majma' al-Bayân fî-cUlûm al-Qur'ân, 2 Volumes, Tehran, 1304.'Ukbarî, Imla'
fi 'l-I'rab wa 'l-Qirâ'ât fi Jâmic al-Qur'ân, 2 Parts, Cairo, 1321.'Ukbarî,
Icrab al-Qirâ'ât ash-Shadhdha, MS Mingana Islamic Arabic, 1649.Zamakhsharî,
al-Kashshâf, Ed. Nassau Lees, Calcutta, 1861.
It is to be noted that Jeffery's list of variant readings are surprisingly
devoid of proper isnâd or chain of transmission. So, it is very difficult
task to determine from where the variant readings were taken.
Jeffery On Isnâd Of Variant Readings
There are numerous problems which Jeffery mentions and overlooks. For
example, the problem of isnâd of the readings attributed to various
Companions of the Prophet(P). Concerning the book Kitâb al-Masâhif of Ibn
Abi Dâwûd, Jeffery admits that:
The greatest difficulty has been with the isnâds quoted by the author, and
although all available controls were applied to them, there may still be
some that will not stand the scrutiny of isnâd critics. The assistance of
Muslim savants in this matter was not helpful for we could not overcome the
principle that every isnâd that led to a statement at variance with
orthodoxy was ipso facto condemned.[14]Much of the material given by Ibn Abî
Dâwûd regarding the history of the text of the Qur'ân, though extremely
unorthodox, yet agrees so closely with the conclusions one had reached from
quite other directions that one feels confident in making use of it, however
weak orthodoxy may consider its isnâds to be. [15]
Two points are to be made here. The first one which Jeffery's claim "that
every isnâd that led to a statement at variance with orthodoxy was ipso
facto condemned" is a lie. And he contradicts himself further by saying
that:
Modern Muslim savants almost invariably set aside the variants recorded from
the Old Codices on the grounds that they are Tafsîr, or as we would say,
explanatory glosses on the cUthmânic text, and they roundly condemn such
ancient scholars as Ibn Khalawaih and Ibn Jinnî for not knowning the
difference between Qirâ'ât and Tafsîr. It is clear, however that only such
Qirâ'ât as were of the kind that could be used for tafsîr had any likelihood
of being preserved.[16]
The orthodoxy took into consideration various factors for accepting a
recitation authentic. It had to fulfill three conditions and if any of the
conditions were missing such a recitation was classified as Shâdhdh
(unusual).
The first condition was that the recitation have an authentic chain of
narration in which the chain of narrators was continuous, the narrators were
all known to be righteous and they were all knwon to possess good memories.
It was also required that the recitation be conveyed by a large number of
narrators on each level of the chain of narration below the level of
Sahaabah (the condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic chains
but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted as explanations (Tafseer)
of the Sahaabah but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur'ân.
As for the narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of
narration, they were classified as Baatil (false) and rejected totally.
The seond condition was that the variations in recitations match known
Arabic grammatical constructions. Unusual constructions could be verified by
their existence in passages of pre-Islamic prose or poetry.
The third condition required the recitation to coincide with the script
of one of the copies of the Qur'ân distributed during the era of Caliph
'Uthman. Hence differences which result from dot placement (i.e., ta'lamoon
and ya'lamoon)are considered acceptable provided the other conditions are
met. A recitation of a construction for which no evidence could be found
would be classified Shaadhdh. This classification did not mean that all
aspects of the recitation was considered Shaadhdh. It only meant that the
unverified constructions were considered Shaadhdh.[17]
Where does the orthodoxy condemn any statement of variance? What the
orthodoxy rejects is the false chain of narrations not the lack of tawâtur.
It is not clear from anything that Jeffery has said in his specialist work
on the Qur'ân why anyone should feel this degree of confidence. According to
Jeffery, Islamic scholars have considered that isnâd of reports in Kitâb
al-Masâhif weak, yet he wants to push it because it is 'extremely
unorthodox'. Neither he has bothered to check the isnâd of the hadîths nor
has he commented on any of the hadîth probably assuming that the hadîths
were forgeries.
Later while talking about the authenticity of the readings ascribed to the
Old Codices, Jeffery says:
The question arises, of course, as to the authenticity of the readings
ascribed to these Old Codices. In some cases it must be confessed there is a
suspicion of readings later invented by grammarians and theologians being
fathered on these early authorities in order to gain prestige of their name.
This suspicion is strongest in the case of distinctively Shi'a readings that
are attributed to Ibn Mascud, and in readings attributed to the wives of the
Prophet. It is felt also in regard to the readings attributed to Ibn cAbbâs,
who as Ubermensch des Tafsir, tended to get his authority quoted for any and
every matter connected with Qur'ânic studies. On the whole, one may feel
confident that the majority of readings quoted from any Reader really goes
back to early authority. [18]
And again it is still unclear from where does his confidence comes from?
Some of the hadîths are reported to be weak and now Jeffery says that it is
unclear whether some of the readings are genuine!! So what we essentially
have is a big problem in dealing with the book Kitâb al-Masâhif. Jeffery
again comments on the hadîths:
The more difficult question is that of defective transmission. Occasionally
in reading the Commentaries one finds a reading that is commonly known as
coming from a certain early Reader attributed to quite another source. Where
authorities can be weighed it is generally possible to decide which
attribution is correct, but in cases where a variant is quoted by only one
source which is otherwise known for the carelessness of its citation of
authorities, one can never be sure that that particular variant is correctly
attributed to the Reader given. [19]
and went on to say:
A similar problem of accurate transmission naturally attaches to variants
themselves. Being uncanonical variants there was none of the meticulous care
taken over their transmission such as we find for the canonical readings,
and we not infrequently have various forms of the variants attributed to the
same Reader in different sources. In such cases nothing can be done but to
give them all hope that further information may enable us to decide between
them.[20]
Well, Jeffery would have been better off if he had checked the isnâd of the
hadîth. It appears that some of the so called readings are linguistically
impossible because of the defect in the transmission.
Some of the variants in the form in which they have survived to us seem
linguistically impossible, and in certain cases this has been noted in the
source which quote the variant. The defect is doubtless due to faulty
transmission, and it is possible that some of the scholars may even now spot
where the corruption lies and restore us to original reading. [21]
A feature that would strike any Muslim reader of Jeffery's book Materials
for the History of the Text of the Qur'ân is that the variants listed there
are supplied without the isnâd. Ahmad von Denffer in his book cUlûm
al-Qur'ân comments about Jeffery's work:
...all the variants - or probably most of them - listed in the classical
works from which Jeffery has drawn the information, must be supplied with an
isnâd, showing how the information about the particular variant reading has
been obtained and transmitted. Perhaps, Jeffery might have thought it is
useless to study the isnâd - since the Orientalists usually assume that they
are fabricated anyway. But if this is so, from where then does the
confidence arise that his collection can be of any use for a critical text
of the Qur'ân? [22]
And he went on to say:
However, in my view the isnâd needs to be scrutinised carefully in each and
every case to see which of the reports on variant readings are indeed
probable or improbable, and among the probable ones, which are sound and
which are not. All this, it is true, can still be done, but Jeffery's
collection is only of limited use for such a study.[23]
Jeffery & Manuscript Evidence
Elsewhere Jeffery while mentioning various Codices, hints the lack of
textual variations in the manuscripts that lead him to 'pursue' the
information in rival Codices:
It is of course obvious that all the information we can gather regarding the
text of these early Codices is of the utmost importance for the textual
importance of the Qur'ân. This in the absence of any direct manuscript
evidence gives us our sole witness to the types of the text which cUthmân's
standard text superseded.[24]
Talking about the Archive of Professor Bergstrasser, Jeffery says:
Meanwhile Dr. Pretzl, Bergstrasser's successor at Munich, has begun to
organize the Archive for the Korankomission set up by the Bavarian Academy
at Bergstrasser's initiation, and has already assembled a goodly collection
of photographs of early Kufic Codices and early unpublished Qirâ'ât
works.[25]
Regarding the work of Bergstrasser, he admits:
Bergstrasser in his preliminary collection of the uncanonical readings of
Ibn Mascud and Ubai made an attempt to estimate the value of these two texts
as compared with the cUthmânic text. With the increase of material one feels
less inclined to venture on such a judgement of value.[26]
It is interesting to note that Jeffery concedes the lack of textual
differences in the rival Codices attributed to Ibn Mascud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b
when compared to cUthmânic 'text'. This basically means that the assumption
of rival Codices itself was wrong to start with. Further he went on to
'explain' the variants found in the uncanonical Codices as being
'improvements' on the cUthmânic text. Jeffery further 'suggests' that these
Companions may have suggested such variants out of piety.[27]
We have also seen above the conclusions arising from Professor
Bergstrasser's preliminary collection of the uncanonical readings that the
textual differences in the Qur'ân are lacking. It is worthwhile mentioning
the work of Nabia Abbott too.
In her book The Rise of The North Arabic Script & Its Kur'ânic Development,
she presents some Qur'ân parchments and manuscripts dating from 1st, 2nd and
3rd century AH as well later ones.[28] It is interesting to note that she
did not mention any textual differences except for a scribal error in one of
the manuscripts.[29]
If Jeffery was selective in using his sources to formulate a nice hypothesis
of rival Codices to cUthmânic recension, John Burton took a step ahead and
assumed that the hadîths were forgeries only to reach a marvellous
conclusion that:
What we have today in our hands is the mushaf of Muhammad.[30]
Later on he retracted the view on the rejection of hadîths and said:
Some Western scholars, too, have expressed reservations about the hypotheses
of Goldziher and Schacht. My own position is that the wholesale rejection of
the hadîths as mere invention and fabrication misses the point that many of
the hadîths can be shown to spring from an ancient source in the primitive
exegeses.[31]
Adrian Brockett in his article The Value of Hafs and Warsh Transmissions For
The Textual History of The Qur'ân deals with various issues of the orally
transmitted traditions and the seven Qirâ'ât in which the Qur'ân can be
recited. His conclusions regarding the oral side of Qur'ân's transmission
is:
The transmission of the Qur'ân after the death of Muhammad was essentially
static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing
significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor
could anything be put in. This is applied even to the early Caliphs. The
efforts of those scholars who attempt to reconstruct any other hypothetical
original versions of the (written) text are therefore shown to be
disregarding half the essence of Muslim scripture.[32]
William Muir, echoed clearly that there is only one Qur'ân in the last
century:
The recension of cUthmân has been handed down to us unaltered. so carefully,
indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, -
we might almost say no variations at all, - amongst the innumerable copies
of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam.
Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of
cUthmân himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad
have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but ONE KORAN has always been
current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which
has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text.[33]
So, the Oriental scholarship ranging from the likes of Muir and Jeffery to
Burton and Brockett, adopting a different methodology, have come to a
conclusion that the Qur'ân does not contain textual differences and what the
Qur'ân that we have today is what the Prophet(P) recited.
Summary
Summarizing the views on the book Materials For The History Of The Text Of
The Qur'ân we can say that lack of verification of isnâd can result in the
following problems which Arthur Jeffery has already mention:
Some of the isnâd of the hadîths in Kitâb al-Masâhif of Ibn Abi Dâwûd are
considered to be weak. Jeffery himself admits that. It is therefore not
advisable to take any material for quotation unless the isnâd is verified.
The authenticity of the readings in the Old Codices are, therefore,
questionable.
It is unclear what Jeffery means by variants. Does he mean the seven
Qirâ'ât in which the Qur'ân can be read or ahruf in which the Qur'ân was
revealed or variants which are not approved by the Prophet(P) or his
Companions?
The problem of falsification of readings of the Qur'ân can not be
addressed unless the hadîths are meticuluously verified.
The question of defective transmission of the readings in Old Codices is
very crucial. This has lead to linguistically impossible variants. This
again takes us back to the problem of isnâd.
While creating doubts and making insinuations about the cUthmânic
recension and despite his acceptance that the transmission of variants is
through weak chains of transmission, Jeffery is nevertheless hesistant to
admit the reality of the Muslim world consensus ('Ijma) on it.
Jeffery has utterly failed to produce any statement from Ibn Mascud (or
Ubayy Ibn Ka'b) implying that what was in the cUthmânic recension was not
from the Prophet(P). After Ibn Mascud, Ubayy Ibn Ka'b is the second
companion to whom a bulk of variant readings have been ascribed.
From the manuscript evidence shown by his collegue Bergstrasser, Jeffery
concedes the lack of textual differences in the 'texts' attributed to Ibn
Mascud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab when compared to cUthmânic 'text'.
What Is Gilchrist's Position?
Now, has John Gilchrist looked into all the above mentioned problems? The
answer is , No. Gilchrist did not takes the views of the Jeffery seriously
and tried to quote the contents of book Materials for the History of the
Text of the Qur'ân blindly. This is especially true for the Christian
missionaries, who have an axe to grind. Some of the examples of this sort
are available at the missionary site.
Gilchrist extensively makes use of Kitâb al-Masâhif of Ibn Abi Dâwûd and we
have seen some of the problems with the book already. Like Arthur Jeffery,
Gilchrist did not bother to check the isnâd of the reports and quotes from
this book without verification. Consider the following in the Chapter 3 of
Gilchrist's book discussing about the codices of Ibn Mascud and Ubayy Ibn
Ka'b:
When we come to the rest of the Qur'ân, however, we find that there were
numerous differences of reading between the texts of Zaid and Ibn Mas'ud. As
mentioned already the records in Ibn Abi Dawud's Kitâb al-Masâhif fill up no
less than nineteen pages and, from all the sources available, one can trace
no less than 101 variants in the Suratul-Baqarah alone. [34]The extent of
the variant readings between all the codices in existence at the time of
'Uthman before he singled out that of Zaid to be the preferred text at the
expense of the others is so great - they fill up no less than three hundred
and fifty pages of Jeffery's Materials for the History of the Text of the
Qur'ân - that one can understand why the others were ordered to be
destroyed. [35]
For a quick recapitulation, Jeffery said about the Old Codices:
The question arises, of course, as to the authenticity of the readings
ascribed to these Old Codices. In some cases it must be confessed there is a
suspicion of readings later invented by grammarians and theologians being
fathered on these early authorities in order to gain prestige of their
name.[36]
Is this the only flaw in Gilchrist's book? Let us go further.....
References
[1] Arthur Jeffery, The Quest Of The Historical Mohammad, The Moslem World,
1926, Volume XVI, No. 4, p. 338.
[2] Ibid., pp. 328-329.
[3] Ibid., p. 327.
[4] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân: The
Old Codices, 1937, Leiden, E J Brill, p. x.
[5] Arthur Jeffery, Op.Cit., p. 6-7
[6] W Montgomery Watt & Richard Bell, Introduction To The Qur'ân, 1994,
Edinburgh at University Press, p. 41-42.
[7] Arthur Jeffery, Op.Cit., p. x.
[8] Arthur Jeffery, Op.Cit., p. 8.
[9] Abû Jacfar Muhammad bin Jarîr al-Tabarî (Translated & Abridged by J
Cooper, W F Madelung and A Jones), Jâmic al-Bayân can ta'wil ay al-Qur'ân,
1987, Volume 1, Oxford University Press & Hakim Invest Holdings (M.E.)
Limited, p. 16.
[10] al-Tabarî, Op.Cit., p. 16.
[11] Arthur Jeffery, The Study Of The Qur'ân Text, 1935, The Moslem World,
Volume XXV, No. 1, p. 9.
[12] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., p. 13.
[13] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., p. 17-18
[14] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., p. viii.
[15] Ibid., p. viii.
[16] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., p. 10.
[17] Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah Al-Hujuraat, 1990, Tawheed
Publications, Riyadh, p. 32.
[18] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., p. 15.
[19] Ibid., p. 15.
[20] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., pp. 15-16.
[21] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., p. 16.
[22] Ahmad von Denffer, cUlûm al-Qur'ân, 1994, The Islamic Foundation, p.
160.
[23] Ibid., p. 160.
[24] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., pp. 14-15.
[25] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., p. vii.
[26] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit, p. 16.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Nabia Abbott, The Rise of The North Arabic Script & Its Kur'ânic
Development, 1939, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, See pp. 59-91
for the discussion of the manuscripts at pp. VIII-XXXIII.
[29] Nabia Abbott, Op.Cit., p. 84.
[30] John Burton, The Collection Of The Qur'ân, 1979, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 239-240.
[31] John Burton, An Introduction To The Hadîth, 1994, Edinburgh University
Press, p. 181.
[32] Adrian Brockett, The Value of Hafs and Warsh Transmissions For The
Textual History of The Qur'ân in Approaches Of The History Of Interpretation
Of The Qur'ân, 1988, Edited by Andrew Rippin, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
[33] Sir W Muir, The Life Of Mohammad, 1912, Edinburgh, John Grant, pp.
xxii-xxiii.
[34] John Gilchrist, Jamc al-Qur'ân: The Codification Of The Qur'ân Text,
1989, MERCSA.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân:
The Old Codices, Op.Cit., p. 15.
==================
MQ yg pk e-mailnya Abah pd mlm/hr Jmt
MQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQMQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ari Condro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <wanita-muslimah@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [wanita-muslimah] Re: Pelecehan Islam di IAIN
> sebenarnya rada males ngirim ini, kasian si oom. tapi, ya sudahlah ...
biar
> jelas permasalahannya ... dan abah bisa klarifikasi langsung, bagian mana
> yang dianggap tidak melakukan plagiat.
>
> mastope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to insistnet
>
> Assalamu'alaykum,
>
> 1. Isu-isu plagiarisme; HMNA tidak mengenal (apalagi memahami) buku-
> buku rujukan yang beliau anjurkan; ust HMNA tidak tahu membedakan
> antara Hermeneutika dan biblical criticism; saya pikir sudah selesai
> dan tidak usah dipermasalahkan lagi. sudah maklum hakekatnya.
>
> 2. Tuduhan ust HMNA terhadap buku ust Adnin sebagai pengecer dan
> fasilitator yang datanya digunakan orang untuk menyerang al-Qur'an,
> sama dengan menuduh buku al-Ghazali Maqasid al-Falasifah dan Tafahut
> al-Falasifah sebagai fasilitator orang belajar filsafat dan
> menggunakannya untuk menyerang Islam. This way of thinking is absurd
> and needs no further discussion.
>
> 3. "Buku-buku itu memakai tool hermeneutika dalam mengkritisi Al-
> Quran seperti yang dilakukan dalam menkritisi Bible. Jadi buku-buku
> itu adalah HASIL hermeneutika. Ente sudah faham? Belajarlah dahulu
> membaca baik-baik, jangan impulsif."
>
> Ust HMNA kelihatannya 'ngeyel'. Hasil hermeneutika berbentuk
> penafsiran ayat, bukan metode pengabsahan teks sebagaimana yang
> dibahas dalam dua kolom bersambungnya di Harian Fajar tsb. Makanya
> kita katakan {meminjam ungkapannya sendiri} beliau salah 'babat'.
>
> Sudah menuduh buku bang Adnin 'pengecer', ngeyel, ust HMNA juga
> sudah 'out of control' menyebut enta-ente tidak faham membaca.
> Haadza, awwalu'l-ghadlab.... {jangan diterusin ya kalimatnya..he2}
>
> 6. Sebaiknya masalah ini kita ikut pak Yudhoyono saja, "mikul dhuwur
> mendhem jero". Biarkan ust HMNA dengan logikanya sendiri, kalau
> begitu maunya beliau. Mengingat bahwa komunitas milis tetangga yang
> pro-liberalisme pasti merasa mendapat "door-prize" dan saling
> memforward email-email seperti ini. Dan milis tercinta kita ini juga
> tidak lolos dari lalu-lintas tukang pos dunia maya.
>
>
>
>
> wassalam,
> Mustofa
Milis Wanita Muslimah
Membangun citra wanita muslimah dalam diri, keluarga, maupun masyarakat.
Situs Web: http://www.wanita-muslimah.com
ARSIP DISKUSI : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/messages
Kirim Posting mailto:wanita-muslimah@yahoogroups.com
Berhenti mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Milis Keluarga Sejahtera mailto:keluarga-sejahtera@yahoogroups.com
Milis Anak Muda Islam mailto:majelismuda@yahoogroups.com
This mailing list has a special spell casted to reject any attachment ....
SPONSORED LINKS
| Women | Different religions beliefs | Islam |
| Muslimah | Women in islam |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "wanita-muslimah" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
