Taken from Muhammad Mohar Ali’s book “The Quran and The Orientalists”
In 1972 a stock of old parchments manuscripts containing manuscripts of the Qur’an was
discovered in the loft of the Great Mosque of San’a. in the early eighties the Yamani
Antiquities Authority, particularly its President Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa’, ivited through the
German Foreign Ministry two German experts, Dr. Gerd. R. Puin and H. C. Graf Von
Bothmer, for the restoration and preservation of the manuscripts. They worked at San’a
for some years in this project. It appears that besides being experts in restoration and
preservation in manuscripts that had “orientalists” motives; for, it is reported that
Bothmer make microfilm copies of some 35,000 sheets of the manuscripts and took them
to Germany. In 1987 he wrote an article on these manuscripts mentioning, among other
things, that one of them, no. 1033-32, could be assigned a date in the last quarter of the
first hijri century. More orientalist in nature was however the article which Puin wrote
under title: “Observatons on Early Qur’an Manuscripts in San’a”. These writings
attracted the attention of the orientalists to the San’a manuscripts and they held a
seminar at Leiden in 1998 on “Qur’anic Studies” at which both Bothmer and Puin
delivered lectures on the San’a manuscripts.
It is not known what exactly they said there on the subject; but the above mentioned
article of Puin clearly shows his intentions and conclusions on the subject. In the main he
stresses three things in the article. First, he refers to the attempts made previously by
the orientalists like Jeffrey Arthur, Otto Pretzel, Anthony Spitaler and A. Fischer to collect
the existing manuscripts of the Qur’an in order to prepare what they call a revised
version by comparing any differences in them and regretfully mentions that the very
large number of manuscripts collected for the purpose at the University of Munich,
Germany, were destroyed by bombing during the Second World War. He then expresses
the hope that the San’a find offers an opportunity to resume that project of work.
Second, he mentions what he has been able to note the “discrepancies” in the San’a
manuscripts and says: (a) In a number of manuscripts the letter alif (hamzah) is written in
an incorrect way; (b) there are some differences in the numbering of ‘ayahs in some
surahs and (c) in two or three sheets he has found surahs written not in the order as
found in the Qur’an in circulation. Third he recognises that these “discrepancies”
are minor and they would not probably lead to any sudden and significant
advance in the field of Qur’anic studies. Nonetheless he asserts that the Qur’an,
though it claims to be “clear” (mubin) is not so and that the existence of the above
mentioned “discrepancies” show that the surahs of the Qur’an were not written down in
their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet and that it is probable that a Qur’an with
a different order of the surahs was in circulation for a long time.
It must at once be pointed out that these statements and conclusions are
clearly far-fetched and totally untenable. Before discussing this, however, it is
necessary to point out that this writing of Puin (and also of Bothmer) gave rise to wide-
spread and wild speculations in the orientalists circles if only because these fell on ready
and willing ears. One of the orientalist writers, Toby Lester, held telephonic
conversations with Puin on the subject and then put forth an article in the January 1999
issue of the Atlantic Monthly under caption: “What is the Qur’an?”. The article if made up
of three types of materials: (a) information about the San’a find an the conclusions aid to
have been arrived at by Puin and Bothmer; (b) assumptions of the other orientalists like
Wansborough, Cook , Crone, Nevo and J. A. Bellamy about the Qur’an and (c)
indications about what the orientalists are doing or propose to do in the field f Qur’anic
studies.
As regards the San’a manuscripts Toby Lester inflates and reiterates the views of Puin
and says that according to him the Qur’an came into being through a process of
evolution over a long period; that it is not a book sent down from the heaven on the
Prophet in the seventh Christian century; that it is not “clear” as it claims to be, every
fifth of its ayahs being either unintelligible of inexplicable and that there are instances of
palimpsests or overwriting of some words or expressions in some sheets of the
manuscripts. Lester further alleges that the Yamani authorities are unwilling to allow
detailed study of the manuscripts for fear of causing uneasiness in the Islamic world but,
nonetheless, these manuscripts will help the orientalists in proving that the Qur’an has a
“history” just as the Bible has a “history”. As regards the assumptions of the other
orientalists like Wansborough, Crone ad Cook, Lester sums up their view as already
noted. Regarding the statements of J. A. Bellamy, we shall presently notice them.
This article of Toby Lester, more than the articles of Puin and Bothmer, caused a wave
of protests and anger against the Yamani authorities’ handling of the manuscripts, which
in turn led to Puin and Bothmer to fear that their relationship with the latter would be
adversely affected. Hence each of them hurried to write a letter to Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa to
clarify their position. In his letter Puin defended himself as well as is colleague Bothmer
and denied having said that there was among the manuscripts a different Qur’an than
the one currently in circulation, that there was no basis of truth for what the American
journal had alleged about their researches about the Qur’an and that the press
campaign was intended to harm the academic relationship between he and the Yamani
authorities.
This defence of Puin is in fact a mere twisting and turning of the words and it does not
tally with what he actually says in his article. He says, as we have noticed, that the Qur’
an, though it claims to be “clear” (mubin) is not so, that the alleged “discrepancies” show
that the surahs of the Qur’an were not written down in their final form during the lifetime
of the Prophet and that it is possible that a Qur’an with a different order of the surahs
was in circulation for a long time. He also says that the San’a find offers an opportunity
to the orientalists to resume the work of preparing a revised version of the Qur’an. It is
therefore necessary to discuss briefly the discrepancies and inaccuracies in the
statements of Puin himself.
First, in his reference to the collections of the Qur’anic manuscripts at the University of
Munich and the efforts of the orientalists in that connection Puin omits to mention a very
important fact. It is that, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War the
authorities in charge of those manuscripts had actually issued a statement on the basis
of their study of them. That had said that a study and comparison of the
manuscripts, though not complete, had not revealed any discrepancy and
difference in the texts except minor spelling mistakes in some places which
was natural and all of which did not, however, affect the correctness and
integrity of the Qur’anic text as a whole. The “discrepancies” in the writing of
‘alif at some places to which Puin refers to belongs to this type of error or style
in writing and they do not in any way affect the integrity and correctness of the
text as a whole.
Second, slight difference in the numbering of ‘ayahs with regard to some
surahs which Puin notices with regard to a few surahs is quite natural. Such
difference in the numbering of ‘ayahs is acknowledged even by some classical
Muslim scholars and it does not affect the text at all. Even the well known
orientalist Flugel’s numbering of the ‘ayahs of some surahs differs slightly from
the standard numbering. Significantly enough, while speaking about the
difference in numbering of ‘ayahs Puin does not at all indicate any difference in
the text of the surahs.
Third, palimpsests or overwriting of words or expressions in a few places do
not suggest anything more than correction of mistakes omitted in the writing of
the words in the first instance. It cannot be a proof in support of the theory of
revision of evolution of the text unless and earlier copy of the Qur’an
containing different words and expressions in the same place is shown to
exist. This has not been found in the San’a manuscripts nor shown by any other
orientalist to have ever been existence.
Fourth, the conclusion that the surahs were not written down in their final form
during the lifetime of the Prophet or that a Qur’an with a different ordering of
the surahs was in circulation for a long time just because two or three sheets
have been found where some surahs have been written in a different order,
that is surahs from different places of the Qur’an in circulation have been put
together, is hasty and untenable. It is important to note that is has been the
habit of the Muslims since the very beginning to make collections of selected
surahs in one compilation for purpose of study and memorisation, especially be
students at madrasahs. And since mosques were invariably educational institutions, it
is not at all strange that such collection of selected surahs should be found in a stock of
Arabic manuscripts stored in a great mosque. In any case, by the very admission of
Puin, this is confined to two or three manuscript sheets only out of more than
35,000 sheets. Before hazarding such a serious conclusion Puin and his sort
should have got hold of copy of the Qur’an, or a considerable part of the
existing Qur’an.
Even the existence of a complete copy of the Qur’an with a different order of the surahs
does not ipso facto prove that such a Qur’an prevailed among the Muslims unless it is
proved that it was accepted and acted upon by them at ant given time; for it is well
known that for academic and other purposes the Qur’an has been published from time to
time with surahs arranged according to the order of their revelation. Thus for instance,
A. Rodwell published a English translation of the Qur’an in 1861 rearranging the surahs
according to their order of publication under caption: The Coran : Translated from the
Arabic, the surahs arranged in chronological order. And early in the twentieth century a
Muslim of Bengal, Mirza Abul Fazl, issued a new translation arranging the surahs
according to the order of their revelation. Similarly Richard Bell made another translation
in the early thirties with what he called a “critical rearrangement of the surahs.” It has
also been pointed out that the orientalists aim at preparing and publishing what they call
a revised and corrected edition of the Qur’an. And of late, as Toby Lester has
mentioned in his article, J. A. Bellamy has made this suggestion on the assumption that
he has found a number of “mistakes” in the Qur’an.
The existence of a Qur’an with a different arrangement of the surahs or with
what is called “corrections” and “revisions” cannot be cited as proof that such
a Qur’an has ever been in use among the Muslims.
In 1972 a stock of old parchments manuscripts containing manuscripts of the Qur’an was
discovered in the loft of the Great Mosque of San’a. in the early eighties the Yamani
Antiquities Authority, particularly its President Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa’, ivited through the
German Foreign Ministry two German experts, Dr. Gerd. R. Puin and H. C. Graf Von
Bothmer, for the restoration and preservation of the manuscripts. They worked at San’a
for some years in this project. It appears that besides being experts in restoration and
preservation in manuscripts that had “orientalists” motives; for, it is reported that
Bothmer make microfilm copies of some 35,000 sheets of the manuscripts and took them
to Germany. In 1987 he wrote an article on these manuscripts mentioning, among other
things, that one of them, no. 1033-32, could be assigned a date in the last quarter of the
first hijri century. More orientalist in nature was however the article which Puin wrote
under title: “Observatons on Early Qur’an Manuscripts in San’a”. These writings
attracted the attention of the orientalists to the San’a manuscripts and they held a
seminar at Leiden in 1998 on “Qur’anic Studies” at which both Bothmer and Puin
delivered lectures on the San’a manuscripts.
It is not known what exactly they said there on the subject; but the above mentioned
article of Puin clearly shows his intentions and conclusions on the subject. In the main he
stresses three things in the article. First, he refers to the attempts made previously by
the orientalists like Jeffrey Arthur, Otto Pretzel, Anthony Spitaler and A. Fischer to collect
the existing manuscripts of the Qur’an in order to prepare what they call a revised
version by comparing any differences in them and regretfully mentions that the very
large number of manuscripts collected for the purpose at the University of Munich,
Germany, were destroyed by bombing during the Second World War. He then expresses
the hope that the San’a find offers an opportunity to resume that project of work.
Second, he mentions what he has been able to note the “discrepancies” in the San’a
manuscripts and says: (a) In a number of manuscripts the letter alif (hamzah) is written in
an incorrect way; (b) there are some differences in the numbering of ‘ayahs in some
surahs and (c) in two or three sheets he has found surahs written not in the order as
found in the Qur’an in circulation. Third he recognises that these “discrepancies”
are minor and they would not probably lead to any sudden and significant
advance in the field of Qur’anic studies. Nonetheless he asserts that the Qur’an,
though it claims to be “clear” (mubin) is not so and that the existence of the above
mentioned “discrepancies” show that the surahs of the Qur’an were not written down in
their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet and that it is probable that a Qur’an with
a different order of the surahs was in circulation for a long time.
It must at once be pointed out that these statements and conclusions are
clearly far-fetched and totally untenable. Before discussing this, however, it is
necessary to point out that this writing of Puin (and also of Bothmer) gave rise to wide-
spread and wild speculations in the orientalists circles if only because these fell on ready
and willing ears. One of the orientalist writers, Toby Lester, held telephonic
conversations with Puin on the subject and then put forth an article in the January 1999
issue of the Atlantic Monthly under caption: “What is the Qur’an?”. The article if made up
of three types of materials: (a) information about the San’a find an the conclusions aid to
have been arrived at by Puin and Bothmer; (b) assumptions of the other orientalists like
Wansborough, Cook , Crone, Nevo and J. A. Bellamy about the Qur’an and (c)
indications about what the orientalists are doing or propose to do in the field f Qur’anic
studies.
As regards the San’a manuscripts Toby Lester inflates and reiterates the views of Puin
and says that according to him the Qur’an came into being through a process of
evolution over a long period; that it is not a book sent down from the heaven on the
Prophet in the seventh Christian century; that it is not “clear” as it claims to be, every
fifth of its ayahs being either unintelligible of inexplicable and that there are instances of
palimpsests or overwriting of some words or expressions in some sheets of the
manuscripts. Lester further alleges that the Yamani authorities are unwilling to allow
detailed study of the manuscripts for fear of causing uneasiness in the Islamic world but,
nonetheless, these manuscripts will help the orientalists in proving that the Qur’an has a
“history” just as the Bible has a “history”. As regards the assumptions of the other
orientalists like Wansborough, Crone ad Cook, Lester sums up their view as already
noted. Regarding the statements of J. A. Bellamy, we shall presently notice them.
This article of Toby Lester, more than the articles of Puin and Bothmer, caused a wave
of protests and anger against the Yamani authorities’ handling of the manuscripts, which
in turn led to Puin and Bothmer to fear that their relationship with the latter would be
adversely affected. Hence each of them hurried to write a letter to Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa to
clarify their position. In his letter Puin defended himself as well as is colleague Bothmer
and denied having said that there was among the manuscripts a different Qur’an than
the one currently in circulation, that there was no basis of truth for what the American
journal had alleged about their researches about the Qur’an and that the press
campaign was intended to harm the academic relationship between he and the Yamani
authorities.
This defence of Puin is in fact a mere twisting and turning of the words and it does not
tally with what he actually says in his article. He says, as we have noticed, that the Qur’
an, though it claims to be “clear” (mubin) is not so, that the alleged “discrepancies” show
that the surahs of the Qur’an were not written down in their final form during the lifetime
of the Prophet and that it is possible that a Qur’an with a different order of the surahs
was in circulation for a long time. He also says that the San’a find offers an opportunity
to the orientalists to resume the work of preparing a revised version of the Qur’an. It is
therefore necessary to discuss briefly the discrepancies and inaccuracies in the
statements of Puin himself.
First, in his reference to the collections of the Qur’anic manuscripts at the University of
Munich and the efforts of the orientalists in that connection Puin omits to mention a very
important fact. It is that, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War the
authorities in charge of those manuscripts had actually issued a statement on the basis
of their study of them. That had said that a study and comparison of the
manuscripts, though not complete, had not revealed any discrepancy and
difference in the texts except minor spelling mistakes in some places which
was natural and all of which did not, however, affect the correctness and
integrity of the Qur’anic text as a whole. The “discrepancies” in the writing of
‘alif at some places to which Puin refers to belongs to this type of error or style
in writing and they do not in any way affect the integrity and correctness of the
text as a whole.
Second, slight difference in the numbering of ‘ayahs with regard to some
surahs which Puin notices with regard to a few surahs is quite natural. Such
difference in the numbering of ‘ayahs is acknowledged even by some classical
Muslim scholars and it does not affect the text at all. Even the well known
orientalist Flugel’s numbering of the ‘ayahs of some surahs differs slightly from
the standard numbering. Significantly enough, while speaking about the
difference in numbering of ‘ayahs Puin does not at all indicate any difference in
the text of the surahs.
Third, palimpsests or overwriting of words or expressions in a few places do
not suggest anything more than correction of mistakes omitted in the writing of
the words in the first instance. It cannot be a proof in support of the theory of
revision of evolution of the text unless and earlier copy of the Qur’an
containing different words and expressions in the same place is shown to
exist. This has not been found in the San’a manuscripts nor shown by any other
orientalist to have ever been existence.
Fourth, the conclusion that the surahs were not written down in their final form
during the lifetime of the Prophet or that a Qur’an with a different ordering of
the surahs was in circulation for a long time just because two or three sheets
have been found where some surahs have been written in a different order,
that is surahs from different places of the Qur’an in circulation have been put
together, is hasty and untenable. It is important to note that is has been the
habit of the Muslims since the very beginning to make collections of selected
surahs in one compilation for purpose of study and memorisation, especially be
students at madrasahs. And since mosques were invariably educational institutions, it
is not at all strange that such collection of selected surahs should be found in a stock of
Arabic manuscripts stored in a great mosque. In any case, by the very admission of
Puin, this is confined to two or three manuscript sheets only out of more than
35,000 sheets. Before hazarding such a serious conclusion Puin and his sort
should have got hold of copy of the Qur’an, or a considerable part of the
existing Qur’an.
Even the existence of a complete copy of the Qur’an with a different order of the surahs
does not ipso facto prove that such a Qur’an prevailed among the Muslims unless it is
proved that it was accepted and acted upon by them at ant given time; for it is well
known that for academic and other purposes the Qur’an has been published from time to
time with surahs arranged according to the order of their revelation. Thus for instance,
A. Rodwell published a English translation of the Qur’an in 1861 rearranging the surahs
according to their order of publication under caption: The Coran : Translated from the
Arabic, the surahs arranged in chronological order. And early in the twentieth century a
Muslim of Bengal, Mirza Abul Fazl, issued a new translation arranging the surahs
according to the order of their revelation. Similarly Richard Bell made another translation
in the early thirties with what he called a “critical rearrangement of the surahs.” It has
also been pointed out that the orientalists aim at preparing and publishing what they call
a revised and corrected edition of the Qur’an. And of late, as Toby Lester has
mentioned in his article, J. A. Bellamy has made this suggestion on the assumption that
he has found a number of “mistakes” in the Qur’an.
The existence of a Qur’an with a different arrangement of the surahs or with
what is called “corrections” and “revisions” cannot be cited as proof that such
a Qur’an has ever been in use among the Muslims.
 |
 |