Talk:Sanaa manuscript

Created

This is straightout of the page the Historicity of Muhammad

Basically I don't know anything about this find and I am hoping that others can fill in the blanks.

BernardZ 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hillenbrand cite

The years given in YOUR Hillenbrand cite, 790 -835, do not match those at Historicity of Muhammad, 645-690, for exactly the same article. This should be checked in the original article by Hillenbrand and corrected at whichever page has it wrong. ThuranX 12:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

They also don't match the dates given at page linked on the Islamic Awareness site, [1] -- Jheald 14:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The change was made in this anonymous edit. [2]. I've checked on Google books, [3] and it looks like it's vandalism. The book does indeed say 645-690, so I'm restoring it. Jheald 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations Required

The new P Puin paragraphs which have been added all need citations to back up their claim. If they are going to make such a heavy statement as the Quran has been altered, then please please provide references. Provide imagery, third credible sources, audio, video everything you have. If however, this cannot be provided soon, I ask others or I personally will remove these new additions. Do not mislead others through conjecture. --Waqas1987 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source. http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_Ancient_Koranic_Texts.htm Stroika 06:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a dead link. Remove the section as requested by Waqas. The slant in this wiki entry is ridiculous.

The Merge

Back in July 2007 User:Azate slapped a mergetemplate to this article to Gerd R. Puin [4]. There has been no discussion so I have removed it. Puin is clearly notable, therefore needs to have his own article. This subject is also notable therefore etc etc. Stroika 08:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the Truth

http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/Dhikr/quran_history.html

examination done by non muslims found the verses of Quran is the same since the Prophits life (Saas)

The History of the Qur'an

In this Book, the Holy Prophet's life, the history of the Arabs and the events which occurred during the period of the revelation of the Qur'an have not been mingled with the Divine Verses, as is the case with the Bible. The Qur'an is the pure word of God. Not one word therein is not divine. Not a single word has been deleted from its text. The Book has been handed down to our age in its complete and original form since the time of Prophet Muhammad.

From the time the Book began to be revealed, the Holy Prophet had dictated its text to the scribes. Whenever some Divine Message was revealed, the Holy Prophet would call a scribe and dictate its words to him. The written text was then read out to the Holy Prophet, who, having satisfied himself that the scribe has committed no error of recording, would put the manuscript in safe custody.

The Blessed Prophet used to instruct the scribe about the sequence in which a revealed message was to be placed in a particular Surah (chapter). In this manner, the Holy Prophet continued to arrange the text of the Quran in systematic order till the end of the chain of revelations. Again, it was ordained from the beginning of Islam that a recitation of the Qur'an must be an integral part of worship. Hence the illustrious Companions would commit the Divine verses to memory as soon as they were revealed. Many of them learned the whole text and a far larger number had memorized different portions of it.

Method of preservations of the Qur'an during the Prophet's time Besides, those of the Companions (radiAllahu anhum) who were literate used to keep a written record of several portions of the Holy Qur'an. In this manner, the text of the Holy Qur'an had been preserved in four different ways during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him):

a) The Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) had the whole text of the Divine Messages from the beginning to the end committed to writing by the scribes of revelations. b) Many of the Companions learned the whole text of the Quran, every syllable of it, by heart. c) All the illustrious Companions, without an exception, had memorized at least some portions of the Holy Qur'an, for the simple reason that it was obligatory for them to recite it during worship. An estimate of the number of the illustrious Companions may be obtained from the fact that one hundred and forty thousands Companions had participated in the Last Pilgrimage performed by the Holy Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wasalam). d) A considerable number of the literate Companions kept a private record of the text of the Qur'an and satisfied themselves as to the purity of their record by reading it out to the Holy Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wasalam).

Method of preservations of the Quran after the demise of the Prophet It is an incontrovertible historical truth that the text of the Holy Qur'an extant today is, syllable for syllable, exactly the same as the Holy Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) had offered to the world as the Word of God. After the demise of the Holy Prophet, the first Caliph Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anhu) assembled all the Huffaz and the written records of the Holy Qur'an and with their help had the whole text written in Book form.

In the time of Uthman (radiAllahu anhu) copies of this original version were made and officially dispatched to the Capitals of the Islamic World. Two Of these copies exist in the world today, one in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent. Whosoever is so inclined may compare any printed text of the Holy Qur'an with those two copies, he shall find no variation. And how can one expect any discrepancy, when there have existed several million Huffaz in every generation since the time of the Holy Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) and in our own time? Should anyone alter a syllable of the original text of the Qur'an, these Huffaz would at once expose the mistake.

[[In the last century, an Institute of Munich University in Germany collected FORTY-TWO THOUSAND copies of the Holy Qur'an including manuscripts and printed texts produced in each period in the various parts of the Islamic World. Research work was carried out on these texts for half a century, at the end of which the researchers concluded that apart from copying mistakes, there was no discrepancy in the text of these forty-two thousand copies, even though they belonged to the period between the 1st Century Hijra to 14th Century Hijrah and had been procured from all parts of the world. This Institute, alas! perished in the bombing attacks on Germany during World War II, but the findings of its research project survived.]] Another point that must be kept in view is that the word in which the Qur'an was revealed is a living language in our own time. It is still current as the mother tongue of about a hundred million people from Iraq to Morocco. In the non-Arab world too, hundreds of thousands of people study and teach this language.

The grammar of the Arabic language, its lexicon, its phonetic system and its phraseology, have remained intact for fourteen hundred years.

A modern Arabic-speaking person can comprehend the Holy Qur'an with as much proficiency as did the Arabs of fourteen centuries ago. This, then, is an important attribute of Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wasalam), which is shared by no other Prophet or Leader of Religion. The Book which God revealed to Him for the guidance of mankind is today's in its original language without the slightest alteration in its vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.224.18 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 December 2007

That's a bunch of nonsense. That "Institute of Munich University" episode is just hilarious because you are referring to a photo archive of 450 rolls of film assembled by the "Bavarian Academy of Sciences" to study the evolution of the Koran. There was never a study of the archive because of the war and also because the archive disappeared, presumably destroyed. One researcher named Spitaler was writing in 1970 that the destruction of the archive made the project "outright impossible", but the funny thing is that recently it was found that he actually had the archive in his possession all along, but he kept it hidden for 60 years to please oil rich Muslim patrons funding his academic career. The current custodian of the archive, prof. Angelika Neuwirth is also very keen to please her Muslim sponsors, so she is making sure to deny access to the archive to any scholars who don't follow the traditional interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.18.134 (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sana%27a_manuscripts&oldid=217273465

About this revision. The reference for Puin's letter as well as al-Azami's quote is the same book viz. al-Azami, Muhammad Mustafa. The History of The Qur’ānic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, Leicester, England: UK Islamic Academy, 2003. pgs. 3-13. Somehow I haven't cited it for Puin's letter and only used it for al-Azami's quote. User:Azate has done a good job of reverting a suspicious revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sana%27a_manuscripts&diff=217273465&oldid=217260292 however now that I've clarified his doubt (here, as well as on his talk page) I'm reverting the latest revision to mine. Please comment here in case anyone wants to undo that one again.
Oh yes, and there is no conspiracy theory anywhere here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elazeez (talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Puin wrote no such letter. The text is from Al-Azami's own statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.95.154 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make unverifiable claims, if you have a point well worth consideration, please bring forth reliable sources to support it. WP is not a place for any original research. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No such letter exists. Read Al-Azami yourselves and point out this apparent letter by Puin as I cannot find it neither can I find any reference of its existence.--Ali M Saad (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reference I can find of an article allegedly suggesting this is from the website 'answering-christianity.com'. The fact that both this article and the original are identical has lead me to conclude that it is nothing more than a copy/paste job by an overzealous wikipedia editor.--Ali M Saad (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Second quote removed as it is as unverifiable as above and it does not address Puin's original quote. It is a fallacious response.--Ali M Saad (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

More bad news about that site where the quotes were sourced from: They have been caught out fabricating sources before to the extent of faking a science journal article where the journal, organisations and people listed within the article do not actually exist.--Ali M Saad (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's in page 12 in the book. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is, but the journal does not attribute it to Puin, but to another researcher who came to opposite conclusions. For argument's sake, why would Puin write "Thank God they're identical to modern Korans, vindicating the pure textual history," etc.? Even the uninformed, without the source, can see the second claimed excerpt is written by a different person (obviously a Muslim: neutral observers let the facts guide them, instead of thanking God that their conclusions back up dogma) than the first. With the source, it is even more obvious, as it is not attributed to Puin, but as a response. This is phrased poorly so as to confuse readers, to make it ambiguous. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 06:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

First, it's a book not a journal. Second, here is how al-Azami introduces Puin's letter (pp.11-12): "Dr. Puin himself has in fact denied all the findings that Lester ascribes to him, with the exception of occasional differences in the spelling of some words. Here is a part of Puin's original letter -- which he wrote to al-Qadi Ismai'il al-Akwa' shortly after Lester's article -- with its translation." Later in his book, al-Azami quotes other parts of the letter to refute other points raised by Puin (not related to the San'a manuscripts, though). This unequivocally affirms that the letter is written by Puin. Third, your argument about stylistic is not convincing and based on original research. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 11:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Aisha Geissinger???

"Aisha Geissinger, a notable writer on Islam ..."

Who is Aisha Geissinger? And if she's such a "notable writer on Islam", why is there so little information about her on the web and why can't we find a better source for her? If it can't be established that she is a "notable writer on Islam", I'd suggest that her quote be replaced with something from Dr. Tarif Khalidi (from Cambridge Uni) from his interview with The Guardian (which the wiki article links to). Calypygian (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In my experience Aisha Geissinger is not a notable writer on Islam. She has produced some works which people from all sides of the spectrum look on more as religious apologetics as opposed to academic work.--Ali M Saad (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ali. Given yours was the only response, I've eliminated the comment from Aisha Geissinger and, instead, sourced statements by a number of academics from the Guardian article. It would be great if there were some other electronic sources for academic responses other than the Guardian article. Are there any other responses by senior academics of which you know? Calypygian (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been interested in the Sana'a manuscripts for a while but it seems a lot of people are hesitant about releasing much information about it until they have a firm basis. So, until Professor Puin releases his findings speculation from both sides of the argument will be, well, mere speculation. Based on what I can gather from Puin so far his work will greatly challenge the Muslim assertion that the text is unaltered and emerged simultaneously with Muhammad's revelations. His work will provide a large deal of evidence to backup the hypothesis and evidence of academics such as Christoph Luxenberg, Yehuda Nevo, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook and Suliman Bashear.

I will be scouring a lot of academic journals in regard to these manuscripts but it seems Puin is holding his cards close for the time being. If only people could so openly publish their work like in regard to New Testament manuscripts. --Ari89 (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hidden Origins of Islam (2008)

Publishers notes on Puin's new book "The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research Into It's Early History" (Gerd R. Puin & Karl-Heinz Ohlig)

“The standard histories of Muhammad and the early development of Islam are based on Islamic literature that dates to the ninth and tenth centuries--some two centuries or more after the death of Muhammad in 632. Islamic literary sources do not exist for the seventh and eighth centuries, when, according to tradition, Muhammad and his immediate followers lived. All that is preserved from this time period are a few commemorative building inscriptions and assorted coins.

Based on the premise that reliable history can only be written on the basis of sources that are contemporary with the events described, the contributors to this in-depth investigation present research that reveals the obscure origins of Islam in a completely new light. As the authors meticulously show, the name "Muhammad" first appears on coins in Syria bearing Christian iconography. In this context the name is used as an honorific meaning "revered" or "praiseworthy" and can only refer to Jesus Christ, as Christianity was the predominant religion of the area at this time. This same reference exists in the building inscription of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, built by the caliph `Abd al-Malik.

The implication of these and other findings here presented is that the early Arab rulers adhered to a sect of Christianity. Indeed, evidence from the Koran, finalized at a much later time, shows that its central theological tenets were influenced by a pre-Nicean, Syrian Christianity. Linguistic analysis also indicates that Aramaic, the common language throughout the Near East for many centuries and the language of Syrian Christianity, significantly influenced the Arabic script and vocabulary used in the Koran. Finally, it was not until the end of the eighth and ninth centuries that Islam formed as a separate religion, and the Koran underwent a period of historical development of at least 200 years.”

Having just seen this now it seems I was right in my speculation of where he was heading. He picks up on - the evidence by Yehuda Nevo regarding the inscriptions; Crone and Cook's thesis that Islam originated from the Judeo-Christian context and their scepticism in regard to the authenticity of the Hadith's; Luxenberg's Syriac sources and thesis regarding the heavy Christian influence.

I will examine what this book has to say in regard to the Sana'a manuscripts as soon as I get a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari89 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait--wouldnt there be numerous errors in the Quran if it was "a cocktail of texts"? Wouldnt it not be consistent with itself? I think alot of this article is just the opinion of one person, with no other person supporting his claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.221.133.221 (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? There are numerous errors in the Quran. Prime example being it's erroneous cosmology. If it really had been revealed by Allah via Gabriel, then surely Allah, being Almighty would not have taken his cosmology from the ancient Greek Ptolomaic view of the universe! Or did Gabriel just get its/his facts wrong.1812ahill (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No the Qur'an doesn't taken its cosmology from the ancient Greek Ptolomaic view of the universe. Besides the name "Mohammed" first appears in a Christian document calling the Arabs as "the Arabs of Muhammed". The book dismisses all archaeological and historical facts discovered. See Seeing Islam as Others Saw It--BelalSaid (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Discovery and assessment

I found the first line of this section seems to have been copy and pasted from Toby Lester's What is the Koran, which is itself quoted in a blog here. Could someone rewrite this so that it isn't take word for word from the source? Hewinsj (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Jonund (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Sana'a manuscripts → Sana'a manuscript – I think using the singular is more appropriate. It is true that many manuscripts were found in Yemen in 1972, but what is of special importance (and what is studied most and written about in this article and the scholarly literature) is one palimpsest manuscript. Indeed, it would be good if the name "Sana'a palimpsest" was also redirected to this page, as it would more specifically refer to the manuscript under consideration. Eventually, it would be ideal to have two separate pages, one referring to the Sana'a find in general and one referring to this palimpsest in particular. Prima meditationes (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why does the age of the material determine the age of the lower text?

The article says "Radiocarbon testing indicates that the parchment, and hence the lower text, most likely dates from within fifteen years of the death of the Prophet Mohammed." Why the "hence"? It seems to me all it sets is the terminus post quem. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Because presumably they prepared the parchments in order to write down the Qur'an on them. It wouldn't make sense for there to be a long time between the two events. Prima meditationes (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Prima Meditationes

Is that a standard assumption generally accepted by those who date manuscripts? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, B. Sadeghi, U. Bergmann / Arabica 57 (2010) 343-436 state: "The date of the parchment is a reliable indicator of the date of the lower writing. The parchment probably is not many years older than the lower writing. Given its dimensions, this manuscript must have been expensive, requiring a whole flock of animals. It is unlikely that the folios required for this Qurʾān were procured for a purpose other than the one to which they were put. In the initial decades of Islam, the period to which this manuscript belongs, the Arabs did not have many books to copy beside the Qurʾān. Indeed, the only extant vellum manuscripts of a comparable size in the Ḥiǧāzī script are without exception Qurʾāns. There would not have been a large supply of unused folios of this size." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.2.20 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Differences between Sana'a manuscript and current Qur'an

I am surprised this is used as evidence that the Qur'an changed. The San'a' Manuscript differs from the current Qur'an in word style, chapter order, and verse count. When writing the Qur'an Muslims debated on the surah order and verse count. Today Qur'an is ordered by chapter's size, other Qur'an are arranged when Muhammed recited them. So it is not an issue. As for verse count, Some writers considered two verses to be one, others considered one verse to be separate two. So it is also not an issue. The manuscript also has a different style from today's Arabic, such as writing "in ma" as two words while in Modern Arabic, it is written as "inma", as one word, also writing "l[a]kn" as "la kn". These variations do not exist in today due to the evolution of the Arabic language.--BelalSaid (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dating

There's absolutely NO evidence of any radiocarbon dating in the main scientific databases. It's just an hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.251.248.99 (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true, these meetings confirms : http://www.geocities.ws/elf_sopron2005/jay/quran-js.pdf Muslims lies should not stay in WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.158.255.187 (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure who the previous people are, but their assertions are quite ridiculous. How can you cite a 2005 synopsis of a 1995 debate as evidence against radiocarbon dating that was performed and subsequently published in 2010 and 2012. Surely, even you can take issue with that. Furthermore, I have checked said article, which makes ZERO mention of any alleged "lie".

I quote from footnote 5 from "The Codex" (2010): "The results of radiocarbon dating at the NSF Arizona AMS Laboratory at the University of Arizona were described in a letter dated May 23, 2008, by the director of the lab and Professor of Geosciences and Physics, A.J. Timothy Jull."

I will be updating this article with an additional section providing more information on the dating once I have the time. Someone should keep an eye on the previous folks from further attempting to deface Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.2.20 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comfort level with sources

Decades ago I made a copy of The Atlantic article describing the original discovery. I assumed that over the years much had happened with related scholarship, but I was disappointed with the Wiki follow-up. I was also concerned that two primary, recent article references are not available at the URL given for Sadeghi. I tracked down "The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet...", at https://www.scribd.com/doc/234880230/The-Codex-of-a-Companion-of-the-Prophet-SAW-Benham-Sadeghi-Bergmann

To avoid misplacing that source again, perhaps, here are two important paras:

"Early Muslim reports assert that different Companions of the Prophet had different versions of the Qurʾān, and some reports give the purported variants of their codices. The differences among these codices appear to have motivated an attempt at standardization. According to the collective memory of early Muslims, the CompanionʿUtmān, after becoming caliph, disseminated a version of the holy book, declaring it the standard. The date of this event is uncertain, but it appears to have taken place sometime during AH 24-30, i.e AD 644-650.

It is to the textual tradition identifed with this version that almost all extant Qurʾānic manuscripts belong. The main signifcance of the Sanʿāʾ manuscript is that its lower text does not belong to this ʿUt-mānic textual tradition. In this sense, it is “non-ʿUt-manic.” It belongs to some other textual tradition which is designated here as C-1. The C-1 textual tradition is distinct not only from that ofʿUt ̠mān, which is known from both literary sources and manuscripts, but also from those of Companions Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy b. Kaʿb, whose recensions of the Qurʾān are not attested in manuscripts, being known only from descriptions in literary sources. I will argue that C-1 and these others formed parallel textual traditions. Comparing them can thus illuminate the state of the text prior to the branching off of these various traditions. It can shed light on the progenitor of all textual traditions, the Qurʾānic prototype." 2601:9:2B80:136:C84A:4E19:F0CF:B85E (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

San'a variants?

A table is recently uploaded showing a number of variants to the Qur'an. Firstly, the source is an article by Sadeghi, etal about San'a manuscripts and the article is copy-righted. We don't need to copy the whole article into this wikipedia page, we can simply give a few examples and refer readers to the source for further reading. Secondly, these differences may not be true variants. A great number of variants can be found in various sources but only a few are considered factual by scholars.Kiatdd (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sana'a manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://amconline.org/publish/op/op-lang.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Asma Hilali "The Sanaa Palimpsest: The Transmission of the Qur'an in the First Centuries AH"

Asma Hilali's work does not appear to be referenced in the article so far; and I think it ought to be. But do other editors have substantial objections? Essentially, her argument is that the lower text of the palimpsest is not a Qur'an mushaf at all, but a school-room exercise in Qur'anic writing. From the other early Qur'ans that have been identified, it is clear that this was a highly controlled text whose production was confined to practiced scribes. But practiced scribes have to practice, which implies a corpus of pedagogic exercises in Qur'anic writing - which would commonly be discarded, but which might otherwise be washed clean for re-use. Asma argues that many of the particular features of the undertext - for example the non-standard order of suras - would not appear exceptional, assuming that the text they come from was never intended as a full mushaf. TomHennell (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an issue including this argument claiming the mistakes were simply scribal practice, but that seems to be the only motivation or message such an edit would add to the article; apologia one could call it. Questioning Hilal's work: why would the practicing scribes be practicing a variant Quran and then have what we see as a conformity to the Uthman version? I ask this because of the absence of vowel marks (vowels being a later development in the language) in the lower text. This would beg another question: why would the practicing scribes exclude vowels while practicing? -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is commonly accepted that diacritics of vocalisation post-date this period. The diacritic marks that are found in contemporary secular documents and inscriptions are those for consonants; and these (as with both upper and lower texts of the Sana'a Palaimpsest) are intermittent; applied only when needed to avoid ambiguity. Where Hijazi Qur'anic script differed from secular script was in the form of some letters; particularly the final form of qaf which in Qur'anic script had a tail extending below the line; and Hilali notes that in the lower text all final qafs have been re-inked to give them a proper tail. There are a considerable number of other such re-inkings and rewritings of less well-formed words, which might suggest a scribe learning their craft. But the strongest point in favour of doubting the lower writing as a mushaf of the Qur'an; is the intrusion of a recital instruction into the text at the beginning of Sura 9. Sura 8 ends with a decorative line, then originally the scribe had written the first line of Sura 9, beginning with the basmala formula. This was then struck out, and the line below contains the instruction "do not recite basmala". Then the next line has the opening of Sura 9, without basmala. Such an intrusion of non-revealed material into the revealed text is without parallel in Qur'anic practice, and renders the manuscript unusable for use in worship. Had this been intended as a full Qur'an, Hilali argues, it would have been readily possible to cancel the leaf and start again. Hence the retention of what appears to be a pupil-teacher transaction may only be understood as indicating a primarily pedagogic use. Or so she maintains.

The key point here being that, if this is not a full mushaf of the Qur'an, there is no necessity or expectation that the suras will follow the canonical sequence. So what is claimed as the most significant 'variant', may not be a variant at all. TomHennell (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Peace be with you, my friend. Your thorough explanation supports the premise of the article: there were varying texts that preceded the 'official' Uthman version. This reality has been made evident regarding the burning of all other renditions / versions / copies which were not considered by certain individuals of Uthman's company to be 'correct'. The evidence for this burning is from the earliest and accepted Hadith, al-Bukhari, specifically Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510 (page 1113). The discrepancy in recitation is mentioned at Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514 (page 1114)]. Notice also Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468 (page 1101) where this evidence is also elucidated. I understand the effort of contemporary apologetic researchers and scholars to bring harmony to the reality that such ancient evidences (Sana'a manuscript and al-Bukhari) contradict the traditional belief that only a single version was taught by Muhammad and only one rendition without defect was passed down through the years. Yet, as you can read for yourself, the earliest evidences do not support the religious tradition nor apologetic efforts. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That may be the case, but is not, as I understand it, Asma Hilali's view. She criticises previous readings of the lower text both those of Elizabeth Puin and those of Sadeghi and Goudarzi; specifially in both stuies sought to conform their readings to traditonal accounts of 'companion texts' and 'variant readings'. None of the lower text 'variants' correspond to any system of variants in traditional accounts. They are much more similar in type to the types of variants (though not the specific variant themselves) to be observed in the Qur'an vereses recorded as mosaic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock; words changed for synonyms, words dropped or added, pronounds switched. All without substantial differences in meaning. Her point being that, when Qur'an verses and suras are reproduced outside of the Qur'an mushcaf there is no expectation at this early date, that the quotations have to correspond to the controlled text. Just as the Dome of the Rock is no longer thought to transmit an alternative Qur'an text, so nor does the lower text of the Sana'a palimpsest. TomHennell (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It stands to logic that this particular work survived the burn campaign since it doesn't resemble the traditional accounts. It sound89s like Hilali is focused on supporting the traditional religious belief by finding any rationale or critique to achieve that end. Your effort, as I read it in your words and points made, seem to not be as objective as one would hope considering this forum's guidelines. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have clearly not conveyed Hilali's perspective at all well, since it is very far from being focussed on supporting any traditional - or skeptical - predetermined religious persepctives. My understanding is that she is rather seeking to make sense of the palimpsests as they stand; rather than fit them into one or another presupposed category - whether Uthmanic text, Companion text, qira'at, or whatever. She does not deny (or assert) any of these categories as historical phenomena; but emphasized that they are all specific to copies of the Qur'an; and no researcher has yet produced conclusive arguments for asserting that the palimpsest lower text is a copy of the Qur'an; as distinct from one or more collections/selections of Qur'anic materials. Sadeghi and Goudarzi do acknowledge this point; but then dismiss it as the lower text is 'too long' to be a Qur'anic selection. But since they offer no codicological findings to support their supposition that the lower text is a single manuscript, their objection fails at the first hurdle. TomHennell (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems you have gone ahead and extensively edited the article according to, what seems like, your interpretational thoughts and come up with some strange arguments in this talk thread justifying your edits. You opened this talk section to introduce what a particular writer has written, but instead of introducing a paragraph or two highlighting this recent work, you revised the entire article. You wrote you are not sure what the writer's objective is religiously, yet your effort is conforming to the religious belief rather than the objectivity most scholars bring to the discussion and should be expressed in this forum. Some of your edits I opine were constructive, while others seem to lean toward your understanding and seem biased.

What is quite interesting, from a psychological perspective, is the various categories that men's minds have fashioned to call the same thing many different things. For example when you say "Uthmanic text, Companion text, qira'at, or whatever" when referring to the same material. The text is Quranic, or contains what people call the Quran, or writings from the Quran (however way one would describe the words / message / ideas that are perceived to have been transmitted through a man named Muhammad). Although obvious evidence of variants and discrepancies exist, men label a certain length of Quranic writings something else, or other Quranic texts some other term, seemingly to always convince others and personally push and conform their minds to what they believe to be true instead of allowing the evidence to showcase the reality for them. This strange viewpoint is expressed when you say: "and no researcher has yet produced conclusive arguments for asserting that the palimpsest lower text is a copy of the Qur'an; as distinct from one or more collections/selections of Qur'anic materials". The material is from the Quran, regardless of the many different categories men have come up with to dispel the myth and obviousness of the variations and differences. This is clearly mentioned and cited throughout the entire article as it was written, but perhaps it is simply you who isn't convinced.

Again, there is ample evidence (of which I've already shared from what is considered historical accounts - Hadith), including this particular manuscript and others, that other versions of the Quranic writings (or portions thereof, whatever men would label them) existed prior to and alongside the effort to bring together an 'official' canon. These portions or entireties survived the burning campaign, yet you have made your effort quite obvious to revise the consensus assessment and question once again what, as I see it, has been long resolved by experts in the field. Your intention to conform the article to what you suppose and believe to be true is quite clear from your edits, my friend.

I find it unfair and biased. I think you should have positioned your edits to show the other side (or another side) of the argument, instead of weaving into the article your revisions and calling it consensus by default (since no consensus was reached here at the talk page and you dismissed our discussions altogether). I think it would be fair and less biased to have a few other editors share their thoughts and opinions regarding what points you are trying to make. I personally think the issues have already been argued and refuted for many centuries, and the refutations were made more clearer with the discovery of the manuscript in question.

I'm going to revert your edits to allow for more discussion. Would you like to request a consensus? I've noticed a spike in talk page views since you began this particular section and I'm sure there are other editors who can point out some things to both you and myself. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

happy to hold back on edits specific to Asma Hilali if there is a problem with them; but it would be helpful if you would point out what those problems may be. Asma Hilali's transcription and translation of the 38 palimpsest folios in the House of Manuscripts is being published by OUP next month. On the face of it; this publication will then be the preferred primary resource for scholarship on the subject of this article in English - superceding the partial edition produced by Sadeghi and Goudarzi, and the speculative versions produced by Elizabeth Puin. You will be aware, I am sure, that Hilali's name is commonly mentioned in discussion of this subject as providing one particular and notable scholarly perspective. But maybe we should wait and see what the reviews are for here definitive volume. In the meantime, however, we have her 2015 article?

however, in the edits I have made so far, I have avoided discussion of Hilali's specific theories; seeking to confine myself to assertions of fact in published sources; for the most part in the 2012 publication of Sadeghi and Goudarzi, which had been inaccurately, incompletely or oversimplistically summarized in the article as it stood. But again, if you find any of my corrections problematic, please say which they are and what is wrong with them. TomHennell (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

HafizHanif; it does rather look as though only thee and me are talking here; which in turn does not suggest a consensus against including Hilali's published scholarship. If no such contrary consensus emerges, then I shall restore the edits in general and carry on. Of course, where any of may particular edits appear to you or any other Wikipedia editors as misrepresenting the published sources cited, then by all means improve them - subject to discussion on this talk page. One point in particular, is that the article needs to properly to differentiate the 38 (or maybe 36, some are disputed) fragmentary palimpsest folios in the House of Manuscripts - formerly discovered under the Mosque roof; from the 40 complete palimpsest folios (plus four detached and sold) conserved for centuries in the Western Library - whose upper text was transcribed by Razan Hamdoun in 2004. Sadeghi and Goudarzi were unaware of Hamdoun's work, so their 2012 essay has no mention of these folios. It follows that the footnote on Hamdoun's study in Hilali's 2015 monograph is the only published source on these folios in English. Hamdoun's MA dissertation is itself unpublished in any case. As it stands, the article is most confused on these points. Other editors views would be most welcome.

One general point HafizHanif, is the application of historical traditons - Hadith in its wider sense - to this particular article. For you or me to cite Hadith in support of an addition to the article would be Original Research - and hence excluded. Hadith (and any other such traditional scholarly resources) are only citable here where they have been applied in a published notable source as contribution to the understanding of the Sana's Palimpsest manuscripts. Hence if the published opinions of Puin, Sadeghi, Goudarzi or Hilali reference a Hadith then this can be in the article; but otherwise not. It is precisely Hilali's contention that previous scholars have been over-enthusiatic in assuming parallels to Sana'a Palimpsest within interpretations of Hadith, Sira and Qira'at, when in her view no such parallels can be demonstrated. The article should, in my view, summarise and explain both sides of this debate. TomHennell (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What I initially had issue with (please read my first response, which I have not edited), is still my initial objection. To repeat; I see no problem including her work and what she is claiming. I do have issue with what I was thinking you would do, which you did (revise the entire article to fit your interpretation of her work). I later suggested a paragraph or two exploring her work and similar conclusions of others.

I mention the Hadith because it is a mainstream belief of the Islamic religion that the Quran is 'perfect', without defect and was never changed, altered or had variations... and this has been shown as untrue. If you need me to cite a scholarly work that highlights this obviousness, I can do that. But I can see in your writing efforts you are trying to mainstream this untruth into a truth, and this is objectionable on all levels... and I've already given my reasons why. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the explanations HafizHanif. On your first point; my original question was whether any editor knew of a sound reason for not including Asma Hilali's scholarship - for instance if she was known to be peddling a niche agenda. I have indeed seen her work appraised favourably on some polemical websites; but the fact that non-scholarly perspectives interpret a work of scholarship in support of their own agenda is not a reason to include discussion of that scholarship; so long as the discussion in the article represents fairly the published scholarship itself rather than the uses others make of it. So far, no such objection has been made. On your wider point though, of course I will always feel free to re-edit those parts of the article that fail properly to represent the publications they cite. As too should you. That is basic to Wikipedia; always better to edit, and then allow you contributions to be re-edited. There is no authorship in Wikipedia articles. If there are particular points on which you feel my edits are themselves misrepresentations, we can discuss them here. What is to be avoided is edit wars in the article over disputes as to what is - and is not - properly cited authority.

On your second point; I fully share your concern that essentially polemical point-scoring; 'my religion's scriptures are more perfect than yours' can be smuggled into Wikipedia articles under the guise of biased or partial accounts of current scholarly findings. But I must hold up my hands and assure you that nothing like that imputed agenda underlies my edits. The theology of the Qur'an as 'uncreated, perfect and without alteration or variation' is grossly anachronistic for any possible period when these leaves (upper and lower text) may have been written. And I am sure that is Asma Hilali's view too; as she explicitly rejects reading the palimpsest leaves through the categories of much later theology. But that realisation is what is driving her particular perspective; if it is not possible to regard the transmission of the Qur'an as preserved by divine providence, then the very high degree of conformity to a standard text observed in almost all the earliest dated Qur'ans has to be the product of a sophisticated pedagogy in the reproduction of highly controlled texts. Which then implies the necessity for a submerged mass of pedagogic exercises supporting the visible iceberg of highly controlled Qur'an texts; and her contention is that the lower writing of the palimpsest represents just such a collection of pedagogic Qur'anic exercises - later washed and scraped for re-use. I am not personally fully convinced yet; and it will be interesting to see how her forthcoming edition is received and reviewed. The lower palimpsest writing has many features of a 'standard' Qur'an of the earliest period; it is written in large format, it has sura separators and verse markers, the script is a lot more monumental than we find in contemporary secular inscriptions and papyri. And it contains passages from the Qur'an with no internal duplicates in the leaves so far read (the lower text in 40 leaves in the Eastern Library being yet unstudied). But against those considerations; the writing is untidy and irregular with unexplained blanks and gaps, there are a lot of mistakes of morphology, there is at least one uncorrected dropped verse, and there is at least one intruded didactic instruction. Hilali looks to counterpart surviving late antique Egyptian schoolroom papyrus exercises in teaching the craft of writing Greek classic texts; as studied by Raffaella Cribione; and finds close parallels to the features in the lower text of the Sana'a palimpsest. TomHennell (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Ms. Hilali mentions avoiding later theological perspectives...which as I read her summaries here, seems to adhere to the original religious notion that the Quran is infallible despite minor differences...yet the differences are mentioned in the Hadith and is a logical rationale behind the burning campaign (again, as stated in Hadith and historical narrative of Islam).

So again for the third or fourth time, I don't have a problem editing in this person's work and their thoughts, but I do have issue with the manner you have weaved into the article her perspective (or your agreement with her perspective). Yes, you have clarified certain aspects of cited material, but have also changed key words in what I would call a watering down of the work previous editors and the message of the scholars who preceded Hilali (or her critique of their efforts)... and this is biased and dismisses their work and expert opinions. Present her ideas, cite them, and be done with it. But to change the entire article to represent her opinions is unacceptable. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, I am glad there is no issue over my particular question of adding a section discussing Asma Hilali's perspectives as shown in the article cited; and I am pleased that you now recognise that she indeed avoids any adherence to theories of the 'infallible Qur'an'. I am also restoring all my other edits, and shall proceed with citing references for them (predominantly from Sadeghi and Goudarzi, but a few on general points of fact from Asma Hilali too). I take on board your reservations about the tone of my edits, and will seek to rephrase any that might be tendentious in a more neutral tone. But if there are any that you still feel have watered down the original reference, note it here with the cited text. I am confident we can improve the contentious issues one by one. I fully agree that the entire article should not be rewritten to reflect her opinions; but equally the article must predominantly reflect current scholarship; which for this purpose consistes predominantly the opionions of Sadeghi and Goudarzi on the one hand, and Asma Hilali on the other (with Alba Fedeli tending more towards the Hilali position, I think).

TomHennell (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You fail to comprehend my words and still continue with your perspective. I reverted your exhaustive work due to its overarching tone, and now you desire I itemize what I find wrong in your edits. Your effort is contentious at worse and biased with a touch of arrogance at best. I suggested a paragraph or two, NOT agreeing with your weaved-in narrative change...but I am simply repeating myself while you are bent on doing as you wish. -- HafizHanif ([[User talk:HafizHanif|talk]]) 22:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be specific; which are the edits to which you are objecting? There are two principles here; we should not be engaging in an edit war; and no edit is 'protected' from subsequent re-editing by other editors. The key reconciliation of these principles is willingness to engage in specific discussion - in your words, 'to itemize what you find wrong with my edits', and propose improvement. If you are unwilling to engage in that process, I am not sure what else I can do other than to return to them once I have completed a section or two summarising Asma Hilali's scholarship. But I don't need your permission to edit the article; nor do you need mine. TomHennell (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I already stated how you changed the tone of the entire article to support your cited author's perspective, whom you agree with. This is biased. Do I have to highlight each edit where you do this? Instead, I reverted all your edits, thus resolving the bias and changing of tone. I am asking you, in conceding to your inclusion of Hilali's work, to summarize her effort in a paragraph or two instead of changing the prior efforts of previous editors and also changing the article's definition of what the manuscript is. You are in effect revising the article and dismissing the work of previous scholars, turning the article into a showcase for this single person's ideas. This is why I mentioned the psychological disconnect of people who come up with many labels to call the same thing by different names, which is ridiculous. Her work has yet to be published, and the response from those she critiques have yet to published. You are ahead of yourself and your zeal in promoting this person's work is yet another biased effort. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed yes HafizHanif; that is exactly what you need to do. I would be most grateful if you would highlight each edit that you take issue with, with reference to the authority that you propose as being misrepresented. Then we may agree a form of words that both improves on the article as it stands, and accurately presents and summarises the opinions of all notable scholars in the subject. And otherwise, I will assume that any edit that you do not take specific issue with, I will simply restore as they were. You are entirely justified in expressing concern that an article might become the vehicle for one particular scholarly perspective to the exclusion of others. But you will recognise that it would be equally unacceptable to exclude new perspectives from a notable scholar, simply because they take issue with previously received ideas. Which may well then imply revising and updating the 'tone' of the article. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a democracy; and some scholarly opinions are more notable than others. But it is not proper to thee and me as editors, to adopt an assessment of relative notability; that is rather a matter of academic repute in the field. I am not proposing yet that we take into account Asma Hilali's forthcoming publication of the palimpsest text, simply her published monograph of 2015 - grounded as it was in much improved images of the lower text than had been available to Sadeghi and Goudarzi. I had understood you as being content that her findings and perspective should be reported in the article. But that is for the future; the edits that appear to be at issue here for you relate much more to the cited publications of Sadeghi and Goudarzi. TomHennell (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Usually when someone is so adamant about their editing, or introducing a particular 'change', and they fail to comprehend what is being pointed out, I take a look at what other edits they are performing on Wiki. I've noticed a pattern.

You also have / had a debate regarding a similar effort at the History of the Quran page. You seem to express that intention here, again based more on your opinion of findings and less on cooperating with others or reflecting what is already found in scholarship. I find that your effort is again biased and according to your personal tastes, and not so much the guidelines of wikipedia, or scholarship (which is what editors are supposed to work through, not use to push their personal thoughts).

You desire to override the work of several scholars from different institutions and revise the article to promote a single person's work, according to what you think you understand of their work (what you've already mentioned). This is bias.

Your effort to revise the perception of the Sana'a lower text is evident by the choice of words you have used in reediting the current citations regarding of the other scholars and current editor summary. You ask I go over each of the many edits you've made, but I do not work for you... and when I initially reviewed your edits, I found what I have already repeatedly expressed, and reverted them all.

Wiki can be said to be a sort of democracy, in that consensus needs to be reached to make such a revision as you've attempted. I opposed your effort and have explained why. Your need for me to hold your hand with each point you attempt is to ignore the revert and my several reasons why.

While truth is not found by majority rule (your quip about democracy), no single person's view (Hilali) can override an entire article simply because another person (you) think they are correct. We will have to find out from those whose work she criticizes (or corrects), and other scholars who are at work, not you nor myself.

Wikipedia is surely a democracy in the fact that you are allowed space to showcase certain published ideas (a paragraph or two), but not free reign (dictatorship or religious control state) to go ahead and revise an entire article to suit your point of view (pushing a religious bias) or an idea that has no factual foundation (the Quran was and has always been perfectly preserved, etc.).

I won't be responding to again repeat myself with what I've already pointed out. I have given my suggestion, pointed out your error, and you understand the third revert rule...so if you are tempted to repost your already twice reverted biased efforts, the issue will escalate. Good day. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey @TomHennell:. You made this revert. The stuff you added back doesn't seem to have refs. Maybe you forgot to add them? The material looks relevant to this article if you can find reliable sources for it.VR _talk 05:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

it comes from Asma Hillali and the Corpus Coranicum (and also from the Islamic Awareness site, but that is not a 'published authority' in Wikipedia terms). I have Hillali's edition (publication due) of the 38 DAM 01-27.01 leaves on order - hopefully in a couple of weeks - and when I get it, I hope to be able to restore that para, properly cited to her edition. As you may note from the exchange above, editor HafizHanif is unhappy with the tendency of Hillali's findings (and of my reporting of them from her earlier articles); so I am holding back until I have her definitive publication to hand. TomHennell (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My responses and objections are clearly expressed, yet misunderstood / misinterpreted. Once again:

Adding Hillali's work is essential to the continued dialogue and exploration of the article's subject matter. This was my initial and continued sentiment. It is the "manner" the article is edited and how that single person's work, or opinions, are weaved into the entire article. My objection is the narrative that promotes a single person's (Hillali's) interpretation while heavily contrasting previous edits / scholars. There is no issue having her opinion and interpretation highlighted, but to change the entire article, and resummarize previous work of editors from previous sources, is not kosher nor acceptable considering POV. What is noticeable is religious apologia and interpretations instead of objective summaries. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we can wait till you get it. It seems we are all in agreement that Asma's work would be a valuable addition. Once you restore it, we can hammer out the wording.VR _talk 06:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree in terms of adding the person's work, but not agreeing to the entire reshaping of the article that TomHennell initially edited in. I suggested a paragraph or two which summarizes the Hillali's work, and how such work either compliments or addresses issues with the work of earlier persons, or other insights derived by Hillali. The initial edit of the entire article read like an effort to cast doubt on the previous works and to highlight Hillali's conclusion, which is a biased effort by TomHennell and reveals his POV... plus the weaving in of terms which forward a religious stance.

It is a shame I have to repeat myself, but I've already posted these objections and suggestions. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That is my assumption too VR. The Sadeghi and Goudarzi essay of 2012 was clearly an interim publication - as they did not have access to cleaned images of the lower text. Their theories and commentary, however, remain notable. Asma Hilali's OUP transcription and commentary will be the first 'full' publication in a recognised academic series. At the same time, Hadiya Gurtmann and Annemarie Jehring are apparently preparing for publication a full series of cleaned images of the lower text (with a modernised transcription and identification of variants, though minimal commentary) in the Brill 'Documenta Coranica' series. I am assuming that access to these three editions will at last enable most of the article to revised and fully cited to up-to-date publications. TomHennell (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it time to change the article title from 'Sana'a manuscript'

I am broaching this issue now to find whether other editors also find the current title to have outlived its value?

Sana'a manuscript could well apply to many thousands of different texts; but even if application is restricted to those rediscovered in 1972 quite a number could be so designated, with several potentially meriting a Wikipedia article of their own. Codex Ṣana'a DAM 20-33.1 springs to mind, but there are plenty of others. Application of the term 'the Sana'a manuscript' specifically to the hijazi palimpsest that is the subject of the article, currently seems mainly to be a characteristic of polemical and apologetic websites.

Looking for a more specific designation; the most common in the academic literature would appear to be the House of Manuscripts index code 'DAM 01-27.1'. The formulation of these codes is a tad opaque (the first number indicates lines per page; the second, width of writing in cm; and the third a sequential indicator); but that need not be an issue. The specific problem for this article though, is that discussion also includes the four abstracted folios that have come up for auction; and also the 40 folios in the East Library.

Sadeghi and Goudarzi have proposed the name 'Sana'a 1' to cover the totality of the manuscript to which all these folios are thought formerly to have belonged. Which would be an improvement in my view, except that I find little sign of its use, other than in quoting Sadeghi and Goudarzi's work. Confusingly perhaps 'Sana'a 1' appears to have a more general application as the postal area designation for the Old City of Sana'a.

Asma Hilali has adopted the term 'Sana'a palimpsest' in her forthcoming publication; and I do find that this already current amongst a range of other academic authorities; Gabriel Said Reynolds; Francois Déroche and Keith Small as instances. On the other hand, it may be proposed that it is not quite unique; there is at least one other palimpsest Qur'an in the Sana'a find.

What do other editors think? TomHennell (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Changing the article title would disable all previous links made to this particular url over the years from other websites, web crawlers, bookmarks, etc.. Doing so would be unwise. It would be wiser and complimentary to the order of things to simply open a / several disambiguation page(s). -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What happens when the article's name is changed is the previous name becomes a redirect. So I don't think it would "disable" things. But then again, I'm not that much of an expert on these matters.

Sana'a palimpsest sounds fine to me.VR _talk 05:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be great to find the guidelines that show what actually happens if it as Vice regent suggests. But would it be problematic if one was to google 'Sana'a palimpsest' and somehow not find this article? This article is first result when those two terms are searched. Seems like a none issue and unnecessary. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

HafizHanif; the policy on titles is here: Wikipedia:Article titles; the procedure for requesting a changed title is here Wikipedia:Requested moves; the mechanics of moving are described here Wikipedia:Moving a page. When an article is moved to a new title, any links to the former title are automatically redirected; "When ready, click the Move page button and, if successful, the page will be renamed to the new title. The old title will become a redirect page, so any links to the old title will still go to the new page. However, note that double redirects (pages that redirect to the original page), will not automatically follow to the new page, so you will have to refer them manually (as explained at How to fix a double redirect and Checking for double redirects)." Double redirects than have to be fixed manually (links not to the old title directly, but to a name that linked to the old title). The general rule is not to move titles unless there is a consensus that the old title is seriously deficient in one or more of the key criteria for article names - and an alternative title can be specified that carries general support. TomHennell (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

'Sana'a palimpsest' would have my vote; previous names redirect in Wikipedia (as too can the alternatives being considered here) so that should not itself be an issue. In general, changing names should not be done simply because one name is preferred by some editors to another; but if a name has dropped out of currency in academic use, or if a name is now insufficiently precise, then a change of name is indicated. Both of these conditions, in my view, now apply in this case. The Wikipedia guidance on names is that the title should be the name in common usage for the subject of the article. Titles should have:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

In my view, 'Sana'a manuscript' is now neither sufficiently recognizable, nor sufficiently precise, to serve any more as an article title. TomHennell (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The language of the scriptures? No Arabic?

I understand that the language in this version is Syro-Aramaic? Not arabic? Ronmar24 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in the article about it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ronmar24, do you have a citation that mentions the language as Syro-Aramaic and not Arabic or specifically one of the several Arabian language dialects of that time? -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Newer research

I can see that the latest and most accurate work quoted here in the page on the lower script of the Sanaa maniscruipt is the 2012 "Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān by Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi" it has been long time since then, does any one know what better more rifined newer research has beeen done since 2012 on the lower script ? Helmy1453 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The research is still being done regarding that particular finding, but this short article was published in 2015 and mentions the Sana'a as well as other factual insights regarding the greater subject of the Quran: Variant Readings. Enjoy. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

With all do respect (talk) the articale you cauted is taling about something else and it lakes all acedimc crieteria. it is talking about the kings farouq quran which is a total invention from the autors mind. readrdless of the insanity of his view it is nonrelated to the sanaa findings and it is non scientific non acedemic and nonrelated to the discussion here. Helmy1453 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies; I do now have a copy of Asma Hilali's 2017 translation and monograph on the lower text; and intend to summarise it for the article. This is major new research; linked to the study of digitised images being undertaken by Alba Fedeli (who published the Birmingham Qur'an leaves). http://iis.ac.uk/events/approaching-religious-texts-early-islam-sanaa-qur-palimpsest-example-0 As noted in the lengthy discussion above with HafizHanif ; Hilali's understandings of the manuscript is rather different from those of Sadeghi and Goudarzi; and I was holding off a bit to see how they might be reviewed. Her particular perspective is that the underwriting cannot be assumed to be intended as a complete Qur'an; but rather as a learning exercise (or exercises) in Quraninc writing. Hence the variant Surah orders (on which a great deal of ink has been spilled) are not significant for her. One consideration suggesting caution in accepting Hilali's thesis is that the supposed counterpart leaves in the Eastern library of the mosque remain undigitised (Sana'a not being a safe place at present); and they could have peculiarities of their own. TomHennell (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above; I would welcome the views of other editors on how to treat this newly published Hilali scholarship. On the basis that this is now the premier published edition of the text; by a notable scholar and by major academic publishing house, the standard Wikipedia approach would be to take Hilali's publication as normative. But there is a key issue of the differences between her findings and those previously published by Sadeghi and Goudarzi; essentially Sadeghi and Goudarzi reconstruct the text as reading a number of 'companion variants', where Hilali does not. Sadeghi has responded to this on social media, proposing that he is seeking to get a rejoinder published justifying his readings (specifically in respect of his published reconstruction of the Stanford folio); but the difference is not simply that Sadeghi is finding evidence for marks in the lower text where Hilali has not, there is also a difference of method. Essentially Sadeghi and Goudarzi are asking the question 'can the text conform the standard (Cairo) Qur'an text; and if not, could it conform to one or another of the known Quranic 'variants' in accounts of 'companion codices'?'. Hilali is rather asking whether there is sufficient evidence of the lower text to reconstruct a reading that differs from that of the Cairo Qur'an. She therefore does not offer speculative reconstructions based on known 'companion' readings. The point being that without these speculative reconstructions, there are no correspondences (in Hilali's view) between the lower text in the DAM folios and any 'companion' tradition. My view is that we should treat Hilali's 'more conservative' findings as primary in respect of the DAM folios; and present those of Badeghi and Goudarzi as speculative (but maybe primary in respect of the Stanford folio?). see this Twitter discussion. https://twitter.com/shakerr_ahmed/status/941665760925114368 But what do others think? TomHennell (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)