From: Jochen Katz (jkatz@math.gatech.edu)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:20:30 -0400 (EDT)
To: soc-religion-islam@telerama.lm.com
Subject: Re: "versions" of the quraan (brad vs. jochen) & Mr. M.S.M. Saifullah


In article <5p8pmb$mj0$1@shell3.ba.best.com>, 
Metallica  writes in response to me:

} > but it is common knowledge that the Hafs text
} > and the Warsh text (mainly used in Northwest Africa) are 
} > different not only in the vowels but also in some consonants.
} > The differences are small, but they are there. And both of them
} > are for sale and in use today. Hafs is the much more common one.
} > The third version I have heard about has by far more substantial
} > differences in comparison to the other two. For the Warsh and 
} > Hafs differences see a few examples at:  
} > 
} >      http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
} 
} it is a common deception used by christian missionaries like jochen katz
} to project the issues which are well dealt with by both muslim and
} oriental scholars as we will see soon, inshallah. 

Thanks for the compliments. And I am glad you looked up some things 
and bring quotations. Let us look what you say. By the way, I have 
said above that the differences are small, but there are differences 
in the consonantal text.

} b. the ahruf are the seven aspects in which the reciting of the quraan
} differs. these aspects govern differences in the noun gender and number,
} verbal tense and mood, inflection, adding or dropping of the words,
} difference in word order, substitution, and what are called dialectical
} differences, such as pronunciation of a', assimilation and
} pharyngealization. [1, pp. 200]

pronounciation is okay. But *adding or dropping words*?

} The Concise Encylopedia of Islam under the heading "Koran, Chanting"
  states:
} 
  "only the canonical arabic text, as collected and compiled under the
} caliph uthman with the consensus of the companions (ijma as-sahaabah) may
  be recited, in one of the seven acceptable versions of the punctuation and
} vocalization (al-qiraat as-sab). THESE, THOUGH FIXED ONLY IN THE 4TH
  CENTURY OF THE HIJRAH, ARE TAKEN TO CORRESPOND TO THE SEVEN AHRUF
} ("LETTERS", "VERSIONS" OR POSSIBLY "DIALECTS") OF THE KORAN WHICH
  ACCORDING TO A HADITH, THE PROPHET REFERED TO AS ALL HAVING DIVINE
} AUTHORITY. IN PRACTICE, ONLY TWO OF THE SEVEN READINGS HAVE BECOME
  CUSTOMARY: IN EGYPT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE READING OF HAFS ACCORDING TO THE
} SCHOLAR ABU BAKR ASIM; AND IN THE REST OF AFRICA THAT OF NAFI (OR WARSH)."
  [3, pp. 232]

Now, if it were just punctuation / vocalization as this quote says, 
then there would not be a difference of adding or dropping words, 
and no difference of consonants. But this difference has already been 
admitted to above and will again below.

} now we have established that these are the divine revealed different
} readings of the quraan and now we need to know the differences between the
} hafs and warsh texts. 

You have established that those are *claimed to be* all divinely revealed.
Since I don't even believe the standard version [Hafs] to be divinely 
revealed this is only increasing the number of claims, but not the weight
of evidence.

} on the graphic side of this transmission the author states:
} 
} "ON THE GRAPHIC SIDE, THE CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN THE TWO TRANSMISSIONS
} ARE OVERWHELMINGLY MORE NUMEROUS THAN DIFFERENCES, OFTEN EVEN WITH
} ODDITIES LIKE "ayna ma" AND 'aynama" BEING CONSISTENTLY PRESERVED IN BOTH
} TRANSMISSIONS, AND "la'nat allahi" SPELT BOTH WITH "ta tawila" AND "ta
} marbuta" IN THE SAME PLACES IN BOTH TRANSMISSIONS. AS WELL, NOT ONE OF THE
} GRAPHIC DIFFERENCES CAUSED THE MUSLIMS ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE FAULTLESSLY
} FAITHFUL TRANSMISSION OF THE QURAAN." [5, pp. 34]

I am sure that is basically true. And given that the differences are small,
it is clear that the overwhelming majority of words/verses are identical.
Nobody ever contested this. It is not the number of identical verses 
which are interesting, but the number of differences. After all, the Muslims
are those who often claim that if only a small portion of the Bible has
undergone changes, then it is corrupted and as such no longer pure word
of God and basically useless for looking to it for guidance.

} in the section "the extent to which the differences affect the sense", the
} author repeated states:
} 
} THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT NONE OF THE DIFFERENCES, WHETHER VOCAL OR GRAPHIC,
} BETWEEN THE TRANSMISSION OF HAFS AND THE TRANSMISSION OF WARSH HAS ANY
} GREAT EFFECT ON THE MEANING. MANY ARE THE DIFFERENCES WHICH DO NOT CHANGE
} THE MEANING AT ALL, AND THE REST ARE DIFFERENCES WITH AN EFFECT ON THE
} MEANING IN THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF THE TEXT ITSELF, BUT WITHOUT ANY
} SIGNIFICANT WIDER INFLUENCE ON MUSLIM THOUGHT." [5, pp. 37]
} 
} and how about the conclusions of the author!!:
} 
} "SUCH THEN IS THE LIMIT OF THE VARIATION BETWEEN THESE TWO TRANSMISSIONS
} OF THE QURAAN, A LIMIT WELL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SUBSTANTIAL
} EXEGETICAL EFFECT. THIS MEANS THAT THE READINGS FOUND IN THESE
} TRANSMISSIONS ARE MOST LIKELY NOT OF EXEGETICAL ORIGIN, OR AT LEAST DID
} NOT ARISE OUT OF CRUCIAL EXEGETIGAL DISPUTE. THEY ARE THEREFORE OF THE
} UTMOST VALUE FOR THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE QURAAN." [5, pp. 43]

I never claimed anything else.

I know it doesn't have "great effect" on the meaning. But the claim is 
that there is only one version and NO difference. Well, the meaning is 
slightly different in the different consonantal variants as you sure
have seen in this article as well, but which you prefered not to quote.
Yes, it is small, but it is also there.

} and interestingly enough the author goes on to say:
} 
} "THE LIMITS OF THEIR VARAITION CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THEY ARE A SINGLE
} TEXT." [5, pp. 43]

I wonder if a Muslim would be satisfied with the same conclusion after
he works through the variant readings in the Bible manuscripts. Sure,
there are some differences, there are some different strains/tradiditions
but they cleary are the same text and the same meaning. Nothing of any
substantial importance is changed if you take one or the other manuscript.

} this leads anyone to the conclusion that there is no tampering of the
} quraan by humans. in the end:

I never claimed any tampering in the meaning of deliberate distortion.
I only claimed that there are (slight) differences and Mr. Saifullah
has graciously confirmed this statement. Since I never claimed tampering
I am wondering why he gets all worked up as if I had done so.

} and it is not surprising that the missionaries like jochen katz are
} refleshing a dead skeleton because they have an agenda of deceiving
} muslims who are not knowledgeable in these issues.  

Okay, where have I deceived anyone in this issue?
I claimed there are two different texts in use, and I said that the
differences are there even in the consonants not only the vowels.
You confirm what I said, and then you said I am deceiving.

} and of course, readers
} of this newgroup have time and again seen how jochen (mis)quotes his
} references and deceives its readers boyth muslims and non-muslims. 

Bring your proof if you are truthful.

} and
} surprisingly enough, jochen can not even support his view point using the
} reference [5]. it is totally against his agenda of falsifying the well
} established facts. the obvious conclusion is that: jochen has not read the
} reference. 

I have read it, I have personally typed all the stuff on my web page from
this article which I personally photocopied from the book when visiting
another library. I have read the whole article and you are a slanderer
clear and obviously. 

} and this reference [5] has firmly established that:
} 
} a.	there is only one quraan.

In what meaning is that word used? Particularly as you admit:

} b.	the differences in recitation are divine revealed not made by
} 	humans

This is a claim which you will never be able to prove, but it is a
statement of faith.

} c.	the obvious conclusion will be that the quraan was not tampered
} 	with.

I didn't claim that it was. You are a lover of the "knocking down straw
men" method. 

} i would like jochen to put this post on his homepage so that at least he
} shows us that he is dealing with the issue honestly.

First you call me a deceiver many times and then you come with this 
request? 

But I don't mind. It is now at:

  http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/saifullah.html

so that each one can see your unfounded personal attacks - apart from
the quotes from the scholarly books.

Sincerely,

Jochen Katz

The Text of the Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page