Did al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf Canonise the Quran?: Evaluating a Revisionist Hypothesis - Dr. Joshua Little

[@MSL21c]

2:43 - Table of Contents 4:18 - Introduction 10:15 - Part 1: The Historical Context 10:24 - Political Chronology 14:33 - al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf al-Thaqafi 18:03 - Part 2: Manuscripts and Canonisation 18:15 - The Manuscript Evidence 23:38 - Evidence from Quranic Scholarship 29:41 - Evident Canonisation 32:36 - The Bounds for Canonisation 34:00 - Part 3: Accounts of al-Hajjaj and the Quran 34:08 - Muslim Sources / Christian Sources 34:16 - John of Damascus (c. 730 CE) 45:52 - The Monk of Beth Hale (late 8th / early 9th C. CE) 49:24 - Pseudo-Leo (late 8th or late 9th C. CE) 54:55 - Pseudo-Abraham (c. 813-833 CE) 55:39 - al-Kindi (9th C. CE?) 57:28 - Summary of Christian Accounts 58:14 - Ali b. Mushir (d. 804-805 CE) 1:00:05 - Abu Bakr b. ‘Ayyash (d. 809 CE) 1:00:55 - Muhammad b. Fudayl (d. 810-811 CE) 1:01:46 - Ibn Zabalah (d. post-814 CE) 1:02:47 - ‘Abbad b. Suhayb (d. post-817 CE) 1:05:06 - al-Sahmi (d. 823 CE) 1:05:54 - Ibn Shabbah (d. 876 CE) 1:06:45 - Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam (d. 882 CE) 1:09:18 - al-Baladhuri (d. post-883 CE) 1:09:51 - Ibn Qutayba (d. 889 CE) 1:10:19 - Hamzah al-Isfahani (d. 970-971 CE) 1:12:16 - Ibn ‘Atiyyah (d. 1147 CE) 1:13:38 - Summary of the Muslim Accounts 1:14:16 - Sidenote on Sources 1:15:24 - Summary 1:16:16 - Part 4: Arguments for al-Hajjaj as the Canoniser of the Quran 1:16:37 - Note: Three Distinct Hypotheses 1:18:11 - Cont. 1:18:43 - Argument # 1: Early Non-Muslim Silence 1:19:07 - Argument # 2: Lack of Infrastructure and Technology 1:19:36 - Argument # 3: Absence of Pre-Marwanid Qurans 1:20:07 - Argument # 4: Christian Reports 1:20:39 - Argument # 5: Muslim Reports 1:21:04 - Summary 1:21:32 - Part 5: Arguments against al-Hajjaj as the Canoniser of the Quran 1:21:59 - Counter # 1: Non-Muslim Silence = Equivocal 1:24:28 - Cont. 1:26:38 - Counter # 2: Infrastructure and Technology 1:31:08 - Counter # 3: Christian Reports = Dubious 1:32:57 - Counter # 4: Muslim Reports against al-Hajjaj 1:55:23 - Counter # 5: Pre-Marwanid Manuscripts 1:59:42 - Counter # 6: Exegetical Confusion 2:02:05 - Counter # 7: Lack of Anachronisms 2:05:05 - Counter # 8: Pre-Marwanid Manuscript Style 2:07:02 - Counter # 9: Dating + Stemma 2:08:02 - Counter # 10: Anti-Marwanid Sects 2:11:16 - Counter # 11: Hadith Rejectionism 2:17:00 - Summary 2:18:57 - Counters to Re-Canonisation 2:22:39 - Part 6: What Actually Happened? Tying in all the evidence 2:22:46 - Explaining the Evidence 2:23:52 - What Likely Happened 2:26:42 - Loose Ends 2:28:55 - Conclusion/Summary 2:30:05 - Q&A + Discussion

[@skepsislamica]

Thank you very much

[@srebalanandasivam9563]

Thanks, that's of great help for recap

[@MrMineHeads.]

​@@skepsislamicayou can paste it into the description and KZbin makes them chapters!

[@BenM61]

Thank you Dr Little. I like the way you see things and follow the evidence to derive your conclusions without taking a special case and try to build a whole theory that goes against the traditional views.

[@kschacherer92]

These uploads w/ Dr little have really been a treat. I'm so passionate about hot topics being presented like this too as just a matter of fact accounting of the various historical records. Again I wanna thank Roxanne and terron for making this happen

[@IbnAlHimyari]

1:09:23 Here by jama’tu al-Quran, the understanding is that he memorized, not that he compiled it. jama’tu al-Quran is an expression used by Arabic speaking Muslim even today to mean memorizing the Quran.

[@adhamshebl109]

He mentions that later on, around 1:51:20 but good catch!

[@phs8014]

Salamun Alaykum , peace be upon you (all viewers) Nice presentation from Dr. Joshua Little , love his appearances in this channel. Thanks Terron and Roxanna.

[@imaginationscene]

Still listening but thanks once again to this channel and Dr. Little for doing these indepth lectures, would love to see more on Hadith too. 🙂👍👍👍

[@OzgeBaz-yz2dx]

Certainly

[@IshaTheFounder]

2:56:00 Dr.Joshua was about to explain how Fred Donner's theory was still compatible with the Uthmanic codex before the video got interrupted. Do you happen to know where I can find more on his explanation of how he sees that both of these theories are compatible?

[@MJ-yz8yh]

I thoroughly enjoyed both this and the previous lecture by dr. little. although long its full of useful information and very easy to follow thank you and please keep it up!

[@TabassumKhanam-o2v]

Section: What al-Hajjaj Had Changed in `Uthman's Mushaf? Abu Bakr said that it was there in the book of my father that a man told; I asked my father, "Who was that man?". He said, "Abbad ibn Suhayb told us from Awf ibn Abi Jamila that al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf changed in `Uthman's mushaf 11 letters". He said in al-Baqarah (2:259) lam yatasanna wanzur without ha to lam yatasannah with ha. and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shari`atan wa minhajan was changed to shir`atan wa minhajan and in Yunus (10:22) huwal-ladhi yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum and in Yusuf (12:45) ana-atikum bita'wilihi was changed to ana onabbio'kum bita'wilihi and in Mu'minun (23:85-89) sayaquluna lillah....lillah....lillah he made the two last occurrences allah....allah and in al-Shu`ara in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhrajina and in the story of Lut (26:167) it was minal marjumina. It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjumina and in the story of Lut to minal mukhrajina and in al-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamna baynahum ma` ishahum and he changed it to ma`ishatahum and in al-ladhina kafaru (47:15) min ma`inn ghayri yasin was changed to min ma`inn ghayri asin and in al-Hadid (57:7) he changed fal-ladhina amanu minkum wat-taqaw lahum ajrun kabir to minkum wa anfaqu. and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) wa ma huwa `ala-l-ghaybi bidhanin to bidanin

[@bebobauomy1265]

First: The Hadith is weak, Abbad ibn Suhaib is considered unreliable and a liar according to most hadith scholars. Second: These 11 variations don't have anything to do with the Hajiji. They are related to the canonical Qira'ats, which confirms that this hadith is false. For example, The reading of "lam yatasanna without ha" is the reading of Al-Kisai, Hamza, Al-Khalaf, and Ya'qub. As for the others, they read "lam yatasanna with ha". And both readings are canonical. Third: The Codex of a companion of the prophet - Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann - page 365 : [ A report in Ibn Šabba l-Numayrī, Taʾrīḫ al-Madīna, Qum, Dār al-fikr, I, p. 7-8, states that the Umayyad governor of Kūfa, al-Ḥ agǧ āg ̌ (d. 95/714), had a codex copied and sent to the main ̌ cities. The report adds that, later, the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Mahdī also sent a codex to Medina. The report explicitly acknowledges the prior codex of ʿUtmān. Al-H ̠ ̣ agǧ āg ̌ ’s codex belonged to the ̌ ʿUtmānic textual tradition. This is indicated by a Bas ̠ ran report listing the eleven alleged “changes” ̣ al-Ḥ agǧ āg ̌ made to the Qur ̌ ʾān. Nine of the eleven variants involve just single characters (Ibn Abī Dāwūd, al-Masāh ̣ ̣if, p. 49-50). The differences are well within the range of variations one expects to emerge naturally within a textual tradition. A close study of the variants shows that the Basran ̣ author of the report had simply assumed that one particular Basran copy belonging to the standard text type represented the original text sent out by ʿUtmān. He thus naively assumed that the ̠ eleven differences with al-Ḥ agǧ āg ̌ ’s codex represented changes made by the despised governor. In ̌ any case, there is no chance that al-Ḥ agǧ āg ̌ could have dislodged the various regional branches ̌ of the ʿUtmānic textual tradition especially outside Iraq, and there is no evidence that he ̠ attempted to do so either in or outside Iraq; but there is evidence that if he did try, he failed. Muslim reports about his use of coercion concern Ibn Masʿūd’s text type. Furthermore, nobody ever confused his codex with the original copy of ʿUtmān. One should also dismiss a minority ̠ Šīʿī claim that God’s explicit references to ʿAlī were removed from the Qurʾān, as well as a similar early ʿAbbāsid claim (reported by ʿAbd al-Masīḥ al-Kindī) about God’s explicit references to the ʿAbbāsid and Umayyad dynasties. I intend to discuss all of the above matters in detail in a separate article devoted to the role of al-Ḥ agǧ āg ̌. ]

[@Zarghaam12]

*Very useful! I agree that the first "fitna" or civil war was at the time of Abu Bakr grabbing power with Umar's help, called "huruub-ur-riddah", the Ridda Wars (حُرُوْبُ الرِّدَّةِ). But it is interesting to note that Dr. Joshua Little did not even mention the name of Ali Ibn Talib any where in the chronology. This is all the more surprising since he (Ali) was one of the FIRST compilers of the Quran. What a glaring omission* !! *Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib was named both in the Quranic verse of Aayat-ul-Ghadeer and in various Prophetic aahaadeeth as his successor- all from SUNNI sources* ! Aayat-ul-Ghadeer as ORIGINALLY worded in the compilation of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud, one of the first three Quran compilers - the other two being, Imam Ali and Ubayy ibn Ka'b. Here are Jalaaluddin as-Suyuuti and ash-Shaukani, two well-known Sunni scholars quoting ibn Mas'uud ORIGINAL version of verse 67, Surah al-Ma'idah in their respective exegeses (tafaasiir): *He (Ali Ibn Abi Talib) was mentioned in the Quran as mawlaa al-mo'mineen in one of the earliest Quran compilations* يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس Surah al-Maa'idah, 67 " *O'Prophet* ! *Convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord that Ali is the mawlaa (master / leader) of the believers* and if you do not then you have conveyed God's message, a God will protect you from the people (who mean harm)." *Also readable here* books.google.nl/books?id=hzdMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT522&lpg=PT522&dq=%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85,+%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9 سورة المائدة *And here in Tafseer Fath-ul-Qadeer of al-Shaukaani (also a SUNNI). SAYS THE SAME* ! books.google.nl/books?id=vsR9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT488&lpg=PT488&dq=%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85 *The ad hoc Quran committee of Uthman removed his name from the verse. Hardly any wonder that peopel keep saying the Imam Ali's name is not in the Quran. If it was removed obviously it won't be there* ! *Aayat-ul-Ghadiir was revealed in favour of Imam Ali as the two above sources say and as the 'asbaab-un-nozuul' below says* : *Asbaab-un-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi - SUNNI TAFSEER SURAH AL-MAA'IDAH* VERSE 67 !! www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=67&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 *Furthermore, the following declaration leaves no doubt who the Prophet(s) wanted as his successor* : "إن هذا أخي وصيّي وخليفتي فيكم فاسمعوا له وأطيعوه." " *This is my brother, executor and successor (khaliifah). Listen to him and obey him* " [1,2,3,3] *What more does the idea of khaleefah mean* ? *SUNNI REFs* : 1. At-Tabari Tarikh ar-Rusul wal Mulook, vol. 2, pp. 62-63 2. Ibn al-Athir Tarikh al-Kamil, vol. 2, pp. 40-41 3. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, p. 111 4. Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 13, pp. 210-212 *Both Abu Bakr and Umar went against the Prophet's wish at Saqeefah and usurped the khilaafah, and further going on to usurp the orchard of Fadak by Abu Bakr inventing a hadeeth that no one else had ever heard and which flatly contradicts the Quran* . *As a result of the debacle at Saqeefah and its violent aftermath, when on the orders of Abu Bakr, Umar led the attack on Lady Fatimah bint ar-Rasuullah, she became angry with them both and stopped speaking to them until she died a few months later. Even Bukhari mentions that she was very angry with them* : *Fatima (s.a) was angry with Abu Bakr in Sahih-al-bukhari* kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZDRgayklNSce6s *Above all, you need to ask who was Lady Fatimah's Imam. It could not be Abu Bakr, because she rejected him and stopped speaking to him & Umar till the day she died* . WHO WAS Hz. FATIMAH'S IMAM AFTER THE PROPHET DIED??? *Who was the Imam of Sayyeda Fatema bint Mohammed (s)* ?- Kamal Haydari [ENG SUBS] kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJzZfquPqNJ7i8U *All of this bears serious thinking on the part of Muslims who fail to see the issues involved, including the FIRST compilation of the Quran. This is because they do not read any historical sources, most of which has come down to us from SUNNI scholars* !

[@bentheboxericecream8438]

do you think that it would benefit the shi'ites if they were able attack the preservation of the quran? that way they can legitimize Ali as the true bearer of the quran who will bring it back during end times... then we will see!

[@forlornanimosity2039]

You believe in tahrif, and you are not a muslim.

[@mohamedfaixan]

Assalamualaikum, have you read the Qur'an?

[@ILoveFriedNoodle]

Why the heart though? There's a website called TwelverShia, it is full of refutations against the Shiite scholars' claims. At least read the refutations from both sides first before blindly favoring the other's. Disappointed. 😢

[@mhmhsh]

Very informative presentation and discussion.

[@kschacherer92]

these arguments live and breathe - i just convinced a narrow-minded polemicist against this theory using this video.

[@JohnnieWalkerGreen]

Curiously, it did not even bother to mention the name Ali ibn Abi Talib.

[@nuri_sunnah]

Huh? Why would they have mentioned Ali?

[@MrMineHeads.]

Look up Muṣḥaf ‘Alī

[@nuri_sunnah]

@@MrMineHeads. I believe you misunderstood my comment; I understand that there are (Shi‘ite) reports which mention an Alid Qur'an, but that is a topic beyond the scope of the book which is being being discussed in this video (Creating the Qur'an by Stephen Shoemaker).

[@MrMineHeads.]

​@@nuri_sunnahit's more than Shī‘ī reports. See _Tradition and Survival_ by Hossein Modarressi vol. 1 pp. 2-4.

[@GBL3092]

came here after watching Jay smith's september lecture. He forgot the slight consideration that the scribes also consulted the oral readers, he assumed that the reading came later after the dots and diacritics were placed. strangely, he only pointed out the diacritics and he clearly knew that the lines or the Rasm were 'there' from the start. but all the diacritics are all "ad hoc" and just "shooting at the dark forest". lol. peace and blessings to Dr. Joshua Little and the Skepsislamica team.

[@TabassumKhanam-o2v]

`Abbad Ibn Suhayb: From Basra. He narrated from Hisham Ibn `Urwah and al-A`mash. The Iraqis narrated from him. He belonged to the qadariyyah and called to it. On the top of that, he narrated disavowed narrations from famous people, such narrations, if heard by a beginner in this field, he would deem them forged. It was narrated from Hisham Ibn `Urwah from his father from `A'ishah that the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: "Blue eyes are a blessing." Ibn `Ar`arah informed me of this narration in Nasibin saying: "Muhammad ibn Musa said on the authority of `Abbad Ibn Suhayb." It was narrated from Humayd al-Tawil that Anas said: "I entered at the Messenger of Allah - peace be upon him. There was a recipient full of water before him. He told me: 'Anas, come close to me so that I teach you how to perform wudu'.' I went close to him - peace be upon him. When he washed his hands, he said: 'In the name of Allah, praise to Allah, there is no power nor strength except in Allah'. Then when he performed the istinja', he said: 'O Allah, preserve my chastity and ease my affairs.' When he washed his mouth and nose, he said: 'O Allah, teach me my argument and do not deprive me from the scent of Paradise.' When he washed his face, he said: 'O Allah, make my face white on the day when the faces become white.' When he washed his arms, he said: 'O Allah, give me my book in the right hand.' When he wiped his head, he said: 'O Allah, overwhelm us with Your mercy and protect us from your punishment.' When he washed his feet, he said: 'O Allah, make my feet unshakable upon the day when the feet falter.' Then, the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: 'By the One Who sent me with the truth, Anas, whoever says the same in his wudu', from each drop that falls from his fingers, Allah creates an angel that praises him in seventy tongues, the reward of which lasts until the day of resurrection.'" This was narrated to us by Ya`qub Ibn Ishaq al-Qadi on the authority of Ahmad Ibn Hisham al-Khawarizmi, from him

[@abdar-rahman6965]

Quran as a Book was compiled during the life of Prophet and there are 162 ancients records which show this. After in depth research, Professor Dr. John Burton PhD concluded in his book "The collection of the Quran" that _Quran which we have today is the same Quran which was with Mohammad_ In all ages, whole Quran was memorized by millions of Muslims and that memorization-chain never broke even for a second in past 1400 years. In this way, God has protected His last book as is mentioned in Quran 15:9, 17:88, 41:42

[@JPK-go9fb]

I would like to see an ICM analysis done on moon splitting Hadiths by Dr. Joshua Little

[@Natalie-fj7fs]

It was more like a lunar eclipse that took place.

[@JPK-go9fb]

@@Natalie-fj7fs Can't it be an incident that is predicted to occur during the last hour or apocalypse?

[@remanalmersal5968]

@@JPK-go9fb that's how I understood the verse. It was speaking of things to come.

[@Natalie-fj7fs]

@@Musoplhnhbfhn144 if it were an actual split we wouldn’t exist today

[@Natalie-fj7fs]

@@Musoplhnhbfhn144 I believe God can do anything but I don’t believe there was a moon split, this is bs quite frankly and I refuse to believe it. I believe science and religion should agree. If it doesn’t agree it’s a myth. But you deny the possibility that Jesus is Gods son. God is Great and can do anything right?

[@ami6447]

Dr Little talks about John of Damascus mentioning Quran as a book/scripture suggesting it has been compiled. This argument is strong but even Quran calls itself a book/scripture before it was compiled

[@TabassumKhanam-o2v]

`Abbad Ibn Suhayb al-Basri narrated from Isma`il Ibn Abi Khalid and Hisham Ibn `Urwah and the two Hijazis. Narrated from him people who did not understand the science. `Abd al-Rahman told us that `Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hanbal wrote to us: "I asked my father about `Abbad Ibn Suhayb." He said: "I saw him in Basra several times. The qadariyyah used to claim him." It was read to al-`Abbas Ibn Muhammad al-Duri from Yahya Ibn Ma`in that he mentioned `Abbad Ibn Suhayb and said that it was narrated from Abu Bakr Ibn Nafi` - and Abu Bakr Ibn Nafi` is a senior from whom Malik Ibn Anas narrated - that `Abd al-Rahman told us: My father told me: "`Ali Ibn al-Madini said: 'The hadith of `Abbad Ibn Suhayb is gone.'" `Abd al-Rahman told us, Hab Ibn Isma`il [al-Kirmani] wrote to me: "I heard Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaybah say: 'We forsook the hadith of `Abbad Ibn Suhayb twenty years before he demised.'" `Abd al-Rahman told us: "I asked my father about `Abbad Ibn Suhayb. He said: 'His hadith is weak (da`if). His hadith is disavowed (munkar). His hadith is forsaken.

[@jma7600]

We can put the entire 3 hour presentation to rest if anyone anywhere could produce an entire manuscript of the Quran predating Al Hajjaj ie a seventh century complete copy.

[@radirandom]

I think there are many. The whole quran is attested in the first century 100%

[@santhiramorgan8329]

Dr Little, there is a claim by Jay Smith that Dr Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, and Dr. Tayyar Altıkulac, were given permission to examine the 6 manuscripts, supposedly, written during Uthman’s time. They published their finding in Al-Mushaf Al-Sharif denying the existence of the Uthmanic Quran and said that they dated to the Umayyad period. How far is this true?

[@airepal]

Where can i read this claim?

[@33Nooberly]

Puedo Abraham might be wrong because Muawiya because there is no recording history of the Prophet hanging out together. It was just some man chalking together famous names from the ERA and saying they were connected to the Prophet in being scribes.

[@jma7600]

If we accept that the “State” canonised the Quran, why not also consider that maybe the “State” could have also written, collated, edited, added to, modified; or simply created that original master Quran from which copies were subsequently made. There is nothing really special about the content of that book that would refute that idea.

[@MaryamMaqdisi]

Sure, we're talking about the Quran being older, not about it being theologically correct. The latter (despite what religious apologists may believe) is only a matter of faith. We can't prove it truly is the word of God. As for whether it changed before that, it's a possibility, but for textual analysis we need to look at the work of people like Van Putten, who AFAIK doesn't believe the text changed much (I don't wanna put words in his mouth though, I'll be reading more about him and so should you to learn more about this).

[@paulthomas281]

@2:08:00 NO! You don't have "substantial" Muslim populations. These are still small numbers. And they are not "scattered" across the empire.

[@33Nooberly]

I would like an episode regarding the first ever translations of the Quran from Arabic to other languages and how they were able to do them? Did arabic have any dictionary or anything? The current translation of the Quran are problematic. Example. Bismillah is often translated as "In the name" while its true translation is "In the attributes". For it to be name, it has to have an "Alif" in there.

[@QASKER]

This is nonsense cos Ism would be translated as name in English no other equivalent exist.

[@33Nooberly]

@@QASKER but it's not ism, it's bsam.sim is translated in dictionary as attribute

[@QASKER]

@@33Nooberly No I think you’re confused. You should read Hans Wehr and refer back to kitab al ayn

[@33Nooberly]

@@QASKER "I understand the point you are trying to convey. However, a quick search on the Quran itself will reveal the consistent use of "Ba" along with "Alif" to describe the name. Take a closer look at 2:33; "Ba" is used with "Alif" and then "Sim." Other Examples such as 7:180, 2:31, 19:7, 53:23, 2:33, 17:110, 19:7, 7:71, 12:40, and more demonstrate the frequent use of "Alif" in association with the term 'Name.' The only exception is 53:27, where the passage refers to the 'Attributes of females' rather than the 'Names of females.' It's essential to recognize that the Quran contains the keys to unlock its own meaning. I have been studying it extensively. There is more to it than just the first word. IF i were to open up the list for you then you will find yourself in a state of confusion. Let me give you an example Surah Maryam 19:5 word "Khaftu Mawali" is translated to "Relatives" but in reality the word actually means "Other" or "Opponents" or "Non-Related" or "Non-Arabs". its all in regards to other complete opposite than relatives.. (Note: Imagine being scared of relatives. Doesnt Fit)

[@33Nooberly]

Sim when used with Qa becomes "Kisam"(type). Sim is a supportive structure which expands on uniqueness@@QASKER

[@srebalanandasivam9563]

Wonderful presentation. Still to complete it. But my two cents ... Hajjaj was working for Malik who posited himself as God's Deputy. The Corans of the Ummayads (by Francois Deroche) shows evidence that a third Mashaf happened in the 690ad undertaken by the Umayyad govt at Damascus with Urwa bin Zubayr leading the attempt after the apocalyptic fever going down post the IInd Civil War. The text of the Qur'an had more or less crystallised in the peaceful reign of Muawiya I. So 'canonisation' credit to Hajjaj is too much, but yes he did rearrange and conduct an editing of the text. The Sanaa manuscripts are a counter to Hajjaj mashaf in far away Yemen.

[@alfiras8604]

Hajjaj did not rearrange or edit anything. Neither does Deroche suggest that, as far as I'm aware. The most Deroche suggests is spelling improvements.

[@srebalanandasivam9563]

@@alfiras8604 The third mashaf did indeed take place after the diacritical marks in Arabic were invented in 688ad by Aswad al Duali. There's an undeniable Umayyad touch on the Koran. Reconciliation between the Umayyad and anti-Ummayad copies was done by the Abbasids in 830s (I'm suggesting a fourth mashaf here too)

[@alfiras8604]

​@@srebalanandasivam9563Alright, then can you present real evidence of these Umayyad and Abbasid changes?

[@paulthomas281]

Have you read Tommaso Tesei's article "The Qur'an(s) in Context(s)"? This is an article that deals with evidence of editing.@@srebalanandasivam9563

[@paulthomas281]

Have you read Tommaso Tesei's article "The Qur'an(s) in Context(s)"? This is an article that deals with evidence of editing.@@alfiras8604

[@ZenIslam19]

Did al-Hajjaj corrupt the Qur'an with redaction? ... Ok interesting more documentation on people hating Ibn Masud.

[@traveleurope5756]

He is assuming that everything else from the tradition is correct and tries to disprove the Abdl Malik-Al Hadjaj thesis. But those who put forth AMAH thesis don’t trust the tradition. For example who says by that time there were Muslims everywhere? There was no Islam before Abdl Malik, according to their understanding. Although a Quran could have existed it wasn’t in big circulation otherwise we should have more copies now if every Arab (allegedly Muslim)soldier had a copy and were spread out from Egypt to Afghanistan. Also Muhammad Ali Amir Moezzi explains how in 3rd century the Shias changed their view on the standard Quran being deficient after they got power in some regions and accepted the standard narrative.

[@TheCaylu]

I don't know why it is so hard for the researcher to say that Quran was canonized by the Prophet(SAW) himself. That is why it is so perfectly preserved till today. New testament or Bible was written 30 to 40 years after Jesus and we have so many variations and we are still finding new bibles with different content, So if Prophet(SAW) had not canonised and arranged a system of preserving Quran, we would be facing the similar situation. We also need to remember that there were revolts right from the get go, like H. Abu Bakr(RA) quashed couple of revolts. Hazrat Usman(RA) faced revolt, so if even the earliest Muslim Caliphs had tried to do something new like canonised the Quran they would have faced the revolt, but we don't find any evidence of it. Also the rebels against H. Usman(RA) never accused him of changing Quran or doing something new when they accused him of so many other trivial things. So all evidence point to that the canonisation of Quran was done by the Prophet(SAW) and that system continue after his death and that is the one reason the Quran is preserved.

[@thecat6159]

The core issue is that we have little to no pre-Uthmanic material of the Quran text. If the messages of Muhammed were as widely known, and widespread across the Arabia peninsula whose population equaled six million there would be countless text, inscriptions and writing of his messages in the various scripts that included syriac, Musnad, Aramaic, Nabataean, and Hebrew Script. Instead there is nothing. It aligns with the theme that Uthmanic was the creator of the text, the creator of most of the stories and the one undertook the standardisation of it

[@karimmezghiche9921]

​@@thecat6159hey can you please give me any sources for the figure of 6 millions in Arabia? I've always been curious about the total Arab population at that time

[@thecat6159]

@@karimmezghiche9921 The most simplistic method is to go into a website called the world in data and then find the data containing the historic population projections in accordance with Maddison historic database. Afterwards select the nations of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Oman and perhaps Iraq if you interpret this to be apart of the peninsula, and then select the timeframe.

[@thecat6159]

@@karimmezghiche9921 go into our world in data and find population since 2000bc, and then driest the nations that you believe are within the Arabian peninsula. This will give you a population estimate by time.

[@cdo...49283]

It is not perfectly preserved - there are loads of different companion codexes and variants within the Uthmanic rasm, which itself contains scribal errors. Perfect preservation is a Dawah myth

[@sabahjameel4037]

Dr. Little's presentations on youtube tend to be polemic. Although I'm writing this before I watched the presentation, nevertheless I'm certain that all the included arguments will be refuted - this kind of approach rarely leads to the advancement of knowledge, on the contrary it promotes false dichotomies.

[@sabriya7647]

"Although I'm writing this before I watched the presentation"...........self confessed stupidity

[@sabahjameel4037]

don't be rude - Little has at least 3 other presentations floating on youtube similar to this one timewise, title, structure, argumentation, more or less the same anglophone scholars etc. but hey prove me wrong. does Little presents an argument he doesn't refute?

[@pandawandas]

refuted by whom? Farid responds??

[@Ghaziabadpoonch]

So you didn't watch it but jumped to conclusions. And I am guessing you didn't watch his pervious videos as well but only watched it through secondary and polemical sources from Dawah bros.

[@henrimourant9855]

Huh? Refuting arguments doesn't lead to the advancement of knowledge??? I'm sorry but that is one of the weirdest things I have ever heard.