I love this scholar! Great interview my friends! ❤

@inquisitivemind007

9 ай бұрын

He is the best in the world 🌎

@DalmarDuulaa

9 ай бұрын

​@@inquisitivemind007Yeah, he's a cool guy , not one of those revisionist types making things up despite clear evidence.

@ShhhutUp

9 ай бұрын

@MythVisionPodcast. Sir, please emulate this interview style and allow your great guests to speak without interruptions. Your podcasts are so wonderful but you tend to talk too much.

@jakedones2099

7 ай бұрын

​@@ShhhutUpI think he asks good questions and tries to educate himself on the subject. Like he knew dhul qarnayn. He tries to follow what his guest is talking about

@Umer.us1244

Ай бұрын

@@ShhhutUpI agreed

Very grateful for this interview. ❤

What an excellent interview! ... Only just got round to watching it

Thanks for this interview. I really enjoyed the conversation

great ep, marijn is so engaging to listen to and i thought the hosts did a wonderful job as well. fascinating discussion, thanks all!

Great interview, well done Terron!

Excellent discussion. The credit really goes to Roxanna and Terron for leading the discussion this way.

A wounderful interview

muchas gracias, sir. barakallahu fik

Very interesting, thank you! The non-Uthmanic codices mentioned in classical Islamic sources have some details that are still available - and one or two are very important details too! These non-Uthmanic codices include the ones by: 1) Codex of Ali ibn Abi Talib : First chapter was al-Alaq (which is no. 96 in the Uthmanic codex, and the entire codex was assembled chronologically!) 2) Codex of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b 3) Codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud : He also did not have al-Fatiha (chapter 1 on Uthmanic codex) as the first chapter s he considered it a prayer - Man talking to God. Also, did not consider chapters 113 and 114 as integral parts of the Quran. PLUS some other differences, like verse 67 of Surah al-Maa'idah: *Jalaaluddin al-Suyuuti (a well-known SUNNI Shaafi'i scholar, died 1505 CE) refers to the original codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud where Ali's (supported by Shiat-u-Ali) name was mentioned in certain verses. Read the tafaaseer of al-Suyuuti (Sunni tafseer) called "al-Durr-ul-Manthuur" and that of al-Shaukaani (also Sunni), and you find this* : اخرج ابن ابي حاتم, وابن مردوية, وابن عساكر, عن ابن ابي سعيد الخدري قال : نزلت هذه الاية : (يا ايها .... ما انزل اليك ) على رسول الله (ص) يوم غدير خم, في علي بن ابي طالب رضي الله عنه. واخرج ابن مردوية, عن ابن مسعود قال: كنا نقرا على عهد رسول الله (ص): يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس ) تفسير القدير للشوكاني ص: ٣٨٤ *Ibn Abi Haatim took from Ibn Mardawaiyah. from Ibn 'Asaakir, from Ibn Abi Sa'eed al-Khudri, who said: This verse was revealed on the Prophet (s) on the Day of Ghadeer Khumm about Ali Ibn Abi Taalib,radhiallah 'anho, and Ibn Mardawiyah took from Adullah Ibn Mas'uud, who said: We used to read (this) in the time of the Prophet as* : 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 Here is a longer excerpt from Jalaaluddin al-Suyuuti's tafseer "al-Durr-ul-Manthuur { يَـٰأَيُّهَا ٱلرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَٱللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلْكَافِرِينَ } أخرج أبو الشيخ عن الحسن أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال " إن الله بعثني برسالة فضقت بها ذرعاً، وعرفت أن الناس مكذبي، فوعدني لأبلغن أو ليعذبني، فأنزل { يا أيها الرسول بلِّغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } ". وأخرج عبد بن حميد وابن جرير وابن أبي حاتم وأبو الشيخ عن مجاهد قال: لما نزلت { بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } قال: يا رب، إنما أنا واحد كيف أصنع ليجتمع عليّ الناس؟، فنزلت { وإن لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته }. وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم وابن مردويه وابن عساكر عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: نزلت هذه الآية { يا أيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم غدير خم، في علي بن أبي طالب. وأخرج ابن مردويه عن ابن مسعود قال: كنا نقرأ على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم { يا أيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } أن علياً مولى المؤمنين { وإن لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من الناس }. www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=26&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=67&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 " *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 then you have conveyed God's message, a God will protect you from the people (who mean harm)." .... and Umar's congratulations: ٍبَخاً بَخاً لَكَ یا عَلي أصْبَحْتَ مَولای و مَولی کُلّ مُؤمِن ٍ و مُؤمِنَة 3) Codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b The 10th century bookseller and bibliographer, Ibn Nadeem al-Baaghdadi, mentions all of the above and that he apparantly even saw the FIRST TWO above. In Kufa, according to Ibn Nadeem, it wa the codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud that was the standard text being used at the time, NOT the Uthmanic codex! *Western scholarship is catching up with this and other points that have been talked about and seen in the works of classical Muslim scholars for long and it'll be interesting to see how that goes* ! *And, btw, both Jalaaluddiin as-Suyuuti (in the Middle Ages) and ash-Shaukaani (18-19th century) - BOTH SUNNI - make reference to quotations from the codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud. They wouldn't had they not thought that it needs to be taken seriously* . We all keep repeating that Uthman standardized the manuscript and then burnt the others. Yes, he did burn the others but not entirely just because of him introducing tha so-called "standard version", but also because the others had verses that he himself and those around him may have been very uncomfortable with. One such is mentioned above! That is exactly what happened when Ali ibn Abi Talib presented his ANNOTATED compilation shortly after Abu Bakr seized power, aided by Umar at Saqeefah, just 3 months after the Event of Ghadeer al-Khumm! When the Umayyads seized power they tried imposing the Uthmanic version as Uthman was an Umayyad - and in the end this imposition was virtually complete even before their fall and replacement by the Hashimite Abbasid dynasty! This very early Quran (Ali's codex) was not only compiled DURING the Prophet's life, but annotated as well, since he (Ali) being "like a shadow" of the Prophet knew exactly when and where and referring to whom a verse was. And he was known among the companions as "al-Quran an-Naatiq" (The Speaking Quran). So what he had in his annotated compilation riled up some / many sahabah, as they appeared in a rather poor Quranic light.Following a big furore from the agitated sahabah he withdrew his compilation, and that stayed with his family, their descendents and their followers. That's how the 10th century bibliographer and bookseller, Ibn Nadeem al-Baghdadi was able to see the then still extant compilation by Imam Ali. Read therefore at least Ibn Nadeem's al-Fihrist* !

@homer1273

Ай бұрын

Well that’s a nice piece of Shia propaganda lol “Ali was shadow of the prophet” 😂😂😂😂

I love ur work dr

@1:02:49 It is worth mentioning that a manuscript of the Book of Qira’at by Al-Daraqutni, likely in his own handwriting, has recently been discovered in Tus, Iran. I believe it is about to be released after undergoing editing.

@Zarghaam12

7 ай бұрын

Interesting! I wonder how it shall compare with Ahmed al-Sayyaari's Kitab-ul-Qira'aat (Book of Qira'aat), , which is published.

Personally 2million is very short of the mark for such important research! Minimum 10 million is what he should be granted.

Quran 24:11 says: "Those who have come up with the false imputation are a gang among you. Do not think it is bad for you; rather, it is good for you. Every one of them is liable for what he earned of the sin. And the one who played the major role in it, for him there is a mighty punishment." So, don't worry about those who try to bad mouth you out of ignorance. In fact, they have subconsciously advertised for your thoughts and book. Stay beautiful as usual

Just to add to the earlier comment. The idea of the Uthmanic codex as the "standard" was not always assumed and accepted in the distant past! *Just read 8th, 9th and 10th century and later MUSLIM scholars like, Sulaiman Ibn Abi Dawuud as-Sijistani, Ahmed as-Sayyaari, Ibn Nadeem al-Badgdadi. The latter (10th century) even says that in places like Iraq (Kufa , Basrah etc, esp. the former) it was the "mushaf" (codex) of Abdullah Ibn Mas'uud that was the standard text used at the time. The codex of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib was being used by circles in Madina (particularly the Ahlul Bayt & their followers) and Mecca too.The Umayyads promoted an edited form of the so-called Uthmanic mushaf*. There is plenty of Islamic literature on the history of the compilation and collection of the Quran. *The Sana' manuscripts were by an unknown compiler; later than or contmeporary to the codices of: 1) Ali Ibn Abi Talib 2) Abdullah ibn Mas'uud 3) Ubayy Ibn Ka'b Ali, obviously, and Abdullah ibn Mas'uud, both of whom had direct access to the Prophet DURING his lifetime by being either related, in the case of Ali as his first cousin and his closest companion, or a very near, dear & trusted companion, as in the case of Ibn Mas'uud. Both started compiling the Quran during the life of the Prophet. Our historians mention this, such as al-Baladhuri and at-Tabari, plus many others* . Interestingly, both REFUSED outright to hand over their codices when Uthman formed his ad hoc 'Quran committee', with *Ibn Mas'uud even deriding Zaid ibn Thabit, the young and inexperienced upstart as 'Mr. Chairman' of the committee, with Ibn Mas'uud saying: "Zaid you were not even a sperm (nutfah) in your father's loins when I was writing down Quranic verses - and directly confirming them from the Prophet himself* !" *To top it all the Muslim world uses 5-7 slightly different variants (Hafs from Asim [most popular now], Warsh[North West Africa Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia but also Sudan!], Qaluun [Libya, Tunisia etc.], Dauri etc. ) of the so-called standardized Uthmanic codex, begging the question, if he standardized it then what are these differences we see now, 1400 after this so-called standardization* ! Hafs from `Asim (Kufah; d. 158/778) -- Most widespread. But others are: a)Nafi` (from Medina; d. 169/785) i) Warsh -- Algeria, Morocco, parts of Tunisia, West Africa and Sudan ii) Qaluun -- Libya, Tunisia and parts of Qatar b) Abu `Amr al-`Ala' (from Damascus; d. 153/770) i) al-Dauri | Parts of Sudan ii) al-Suri | and Western Africa c) Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d. 118/736) i) Hisham -- Yemen ii) Ibn Dhakwan -- Parts of Yemen d) Hamzah (from Kufah; d. 156/772) i) Khalf -- Not known ii) Khallaad -- Not known e) al-Kisa'i (from Kufah; d. 189/804) i) al-Duri ii) Abu'l-Harith f) Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d. 119/737) [[ al-Bazzi ]] -- discarded?? [[ Qunbul ]] -- ?? Not much any following of these qurraa' (readers). Please correct and let us know if they are still used?? Abu Ja`far i) Ibn Wardan ii) Ibn Jamaz Ya`qub al-Hashimi i) Ruwais ii) Rawh Khalaf al-Bazzar i) Ishaq ii) Idris al-Haddad

Loved this video thank you One question - Dr @Van Putten said that the 4 Utmanic codices were copied diligently and painstaking by the scribes. Yet when he spoke about canonisation by Ibn Mujahid he said there were multiple variants available at that time. If the first canonisation was so meticulously preserved why were there variants ? Why did they need a second canonisation by Mujahid ?

@doctorSuhailAnwar

8 ай бұрын

Actually I am not. The diacritics and dots were placed way before the qirat preservation. Furthermore the reading tradition was a preservation of various written manuscripts. The variation in qirats were from differences in vowles and diacritics

I also have been following phdnix Twitter for quite sometime.much do respect for Dr Van putten did to Quranic research and I am Muslims. I can quite see why most moslems treat the western scholarships negatively, for one thing there are other scholars school of thought that may have an agenda and bias towards their conclusions on their research, I am sure Dr Van putten knew this also.

Salam Would you give me permission to use this video please in a review to a study that I am putting together? I would link back to your channel and do all the due diligence for credit and appreciation.

@skepsislamica

9 ай бұрын

You have permission

The qiraat readings of Quran is learned by verbal teaching not by written teaching, so how did this scholar or any of the Euro centric orientalist ( missionaries) to ridicule Islam and disuade people from converting to Islam

@connor1414

6 ай бұрын

Do you believe in evolution

@waseemsstudy9140

Ай бұрын

Yes sir, it is an audio book.

This academic who's all hyped about Hamzah is a cool guy. :) But here's a head-scratcher: the Quran was first penned in Hijazi Arabic, and Muslims are all about that fact, backed up by manuscripts. They've held onto those ancient manuscripts for centuries. Still, when they recite the Quran, they go all classical Arabic. What's the deal? It's like a language switcheroo. Makes you wonder if the oral way of passing it down was more powerful, 'cause most Muslims, who knew what those manuscripts said, decided to recite in a different dialect. It's a bit of mental gymnastics, to be honest. The whole seven ahruf hadith deal seems to play a big role in how the Quran is read. Definitely need to dive into that for a deeper understanding.

The more you read and learn the more cobblers are ALL the main monotheistic faiths

Great from Dr. Marijn van Putten again. I would be interested in his views on the transmission before the Uthman text. The oral tradition has been taking a bit of a beating recently. Is it OK to say that the Quran is not the literal word of God? Or are we still saying it is?

3 ай бұрын

It is the literal Word of God. Manuscripts are massahif are just following the notorious and abundant oral transmission from the beginning. Please learn about it before speaking about this topic.

There are different readings in spite of same lettering and vocals. This is due to preferences not due to existence of different languages or dialects. For example Najdi qiraat prefer sounding the a vowel in some places as low a sounding like a in ailing rather than a in avalanche. Not because Najdi people have a dialect like that but because some najdis liked the sounding of a like that and many non Najdi Arabs like listening to this different qiraat. All qiraat are same and intelligeble. No new languages here

@elliot7205

6 ай бұрын

So why was this allowed if the Qur'an was revealed to the prophet in Hijaz/qureshi

@KhanKhan-uw4gr

6 ай бұрын

@@elliot7205 it is to make it easy to recite

@adamofa4444

5 ай бұрын

2 different dialects like American south dialect and American north dialect. Dah

@s3rv3r3rror8

2 ай бұрын

​@@elliot7205Because Allah is the autority and Allah allowed it!

@elliot7205

2 ай бұрын

@@s3rv3r3rror8 yer yer same with the gospels God allowed the differences

It's funny he talks about qiraats without listening to them

With all due respect to Dr. Marjin , but his conclusion is just a reconciliation attempt. Maybe he could argue that the recitation is arguably hijazi, but he completely gloses over the textual substrata. I generally don’t agree with revisionist claims, but they are on to something when pointing to the peculiarities of the Quran and emphasizing the older substrata of the text.

@PhDniX

9 ай бұрын

Could you explain what part of my conclusion is a "reconciliation attempt"? My book and my research is on the language of the Quran, and yes that is Hijazi, that is the language of its composition. Note that the conclusion of my book is explicitly that the recitation of the Quran is *not* Hijazi. But the book is not an attempt to look at the textual layers of the Quran, that's a different question, a different book, and probably to be written by someone who isn't a linguist! But doing the linguistic study is important. If there is evidence that significant layers of the text come from outside of the Hijaz (not something universally accepted in the scholarship, but let's grant it for the sake of argument), the fact that the text itself is linguistically Hijazi, at the very least means that those non-Hijazi elements were "Hijazified" when they were incorporated into the Quran. That has a significant influence on how we model the origins of the Quranic text.

@TheUnique69able

9 ай бұрын

@@PhDniX your last comment is exactly what I was alluding to. Even your friend and colleague Dr. Sean Anthony who’s work is completely against revisionist claims has no problem admitting that the substrata, the skeleton of the Quran could be of non hijazi origin. Anyways I really appreciate your scholarship and work. We need these sorts of discussions on new scholarship in the Arab world.

@PhDniX

9 ай бұрын

@@TheUnique69able I have no problem seeing clear influences in the Quran from texts outside of the Hijaz (the Alexander legend, the sleepers of Ephesus), but linguistically the text is clearly Hijazi. Whatever non-Hijazi elements there are, they were adapted into the Quran in a Hijazi context, in Hijazi Arabic.

@QuranicIslam

9 ай бұрын

@@PhDniX Just want to say this was a great interview. Thank you for doing it 👍

50:15 but that is the issue. You ALREADY know the text is English and THEN you add the vowel. If I wrote this consonantal text, one cannot know which language it is in. “n um sncr mor di fm.” Depending on which vowels one places where, one can construct the same sentence in both Italian and Romanian (“A sincere man dies of hunger.”) So looking at a 7th century consonantal Quran, how can you prove the words are in Arabic and not Syriac or JeudoArabic?

@youtezyoutxz1621

9 ай бұрын

the alphabet is arabic and the words match with arabic more then any other language , even today must arabic in the world is writtin without vowel , they are add only when their is a ambiguïté and that rare

@PhDniX

9 ай бұрын

And I would argue that that is a pretty apt comparison of what is happening with the Quran! I consider it composed in Hijazi Arabic, but read in something that might be called "Classical Arabic"

@youtezyoutxz1621

9 ай бұрын

@@PhDniX coranic arabic is not classical arabic , well classical arabic and coranic arabic are boot arabic , it's like saying that americain english and british english are two seperate language

@PhDniX

9 ай бұрын

@@youtezyoutxz1621 considering I wrote the book called "Quranic Arabic", I think I know ;-)

@youtezyoutxz1621

9 ай бұрын

@@PhDniXdidnt know , love your work !

It's very difficult to hear. The voice is low. It's barely audible.

@skepsislamica

2 ай бұрын

Fix your 🔊

Arabic alphabet is older than phoenicians ( who were Arabs from Arabian) by clue of it (Abjad) is made in a small intelligeble poem verse, where Abjad and Klmn is copy pasted to Greek and then European, so the poem was older than the phoenicians: Abjd Hwz HTI Klmn s'afd qrst. أ ب ج د ه و ز ح ط ي ك ل م ن ص ع ف ض ق ر ش ت أبجد هوز..حطي كلمن.صعفض قرشت.this is bullet proof evidence that Arabic language is very old and it. Was the language of Arabic (Semitic) tribes that populated the Levant Mesopotamia and Egypt at the least, supported by haplogroup j1 being the haplogroup of Nataufians and ancient Egyptian mummies Schuenemmann study 2017 ..