nanya abah apa nanya diri sendiri :D
On 5/26/06, H. M. Nur Abdurrahman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh, oh, ana tanya Abah apa beda biblical criticism dgn hermeneutika, Abah
> 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.IbnHisham,
> 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<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Women&w1=Women&w2=Different+religions+beliefs&w3=Islam&w4=Muslimah&w5=Women+in+islam&c=5&s=89&.sig=HgbJE4zpaps5tGM_RkkKug>
> Different
> religions
> beliefs<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Different+religions+beliefs&w1=Women&w2=Different+religions+beliefs&w3=Islam&w4=Muslimah&w5=Women+in+islam&c=5&s=89&.sig=fkugGyAv9s2MOsJosNDsLw>
> Islam<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Islam&w1=Women&w2=Different+religions+beliefs&w3=Islam&w4=Muslimah&w5=Women+in+islam&c=5&s=89&.sig=nhzAfQEGWf85z0pGtYfZqQ>
> Muslimah<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Muslimah&w1=Women&w2=Different+religions+beliefs&w3=Islam&w4=Muslimah&w5=Women+in+islam&c=5&s=89&.sig=vsdTDaJ0bGOpeSCcN8C_Lw>
> Women
> in
> islam<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Women+in+islam&w1=Women&w2=Different+religions+beliefs&w3=Islam&w4=Muslimah&w5=Women+in+islam&c=5&s=89&.sig=IGwlKtOp2boOvQxJEhVLVg>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group
> "wanita-muslimah<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah>"
> on the web.
>
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/aYWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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 ....
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
