Talk:Samarkand Kufic Quran

Totally disputed
This article ignores the Shi'a view of the Qur'an. --Striver 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article fraudulently asserts that, "The Samarkand Codex could not have been written earlier than 150 years after the 'Uthmanic Recension was [supposedly] compiled - at the earliest during the late 700's or early 800's since it was written in the Kufic script." However, this is flatly contradicted by an unbiased entry about Kufic script in Wikipedia, which states that in fact Kufic script was used in the Arabian Peninsula 100 years before the founding of Kufa: "Kufic is the oldest calligraphic form of the various Arabic scripts and consists of a modified form of the old Nabataean script. Its name is derived from the city of Kufa, Iraq, although it was known in Mesopotamia at least a 100 years before the foundation of Kufa. At the time of the emergence of Islam, this type of script was already in use in various parts of the Arabian Peninsula. It was in this script that the first copies of the Qur'an were written." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufic You will note that this article does not link the word Kufic to the entry on Kufic, because it would have shown this error. The Wikipedia entry for Kufa, Iraq, indicates that that city was founded in 637-638 C.E.: "Kūfah was founded and given its name in 637–638 CE, about the same time as Basra." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa Since Uthman bin Affan, during whose reign the Uthman copies of the Qur'an were produced, ruled from 644 to 656, this would be more than 100 years after the Kufic script used in the Uthman Qur'ans were used - not 150 years before! The Wikipedia entry on Uthman bin Affan also notes, "Note that John Wansbrough and some Western historians believe that the Qur'an was completed later than Uthman's time; however, theirs is a minority opinion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_ibn_Affan With respect to the first comment in the talk above that the article ignores the Shia point of view, also note the comment in the same article on Uthman bin Affan that, "While Shi'a and Sunni accept the same sacred text, the Qur'an, some claim that Shi'a dispute the current version, i.e. they add two additional surahs known as al-Nurayn and al-Wilaya.[10] Nonetheless, Shi'as claim that they are falsely accused of this, as they believe, like Sunnis, that the Qur'an has never been changed and it is with reference from sunni hadeeth books that this inference is drawn not only by uninformed shias but sunnis too.[11][12]" Finally, the author of this entry cites John Gilchrist, a Christian missionary, who was neither a scholar of Arabic or the Qur'an. A comprehansive critique of his book about the origin as of the Qur'an published by Isalmic Awareness and entitled, "Jamc al-Qur'ân: An Exposition Of John Gilchrist's Deceptive Methodology",can be seen here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Gilchrist/ Joseph020659 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You use islamic-awareness.org as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.52.68 (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And that source says:

"2nd century hijra or 8th century CE.

Shebunin dated this manuscript to the early second century hijra.[1] On the basis of the orthography as observed in the 1905 facsimile edition prepared by S. I. Pisarev,[2] Jeffery dated it to the early ninth century.[3] More recently, Déroche had assigned a date to the second half of the eight century.[4] The carbon-dating of a folio from this manuscript was carried out at Oxford. The result showed a 68% probability of a date between 640 CE and 765 CE, and a 95% probability of a date between 595 CE and 855 CE.[5] Commenting on this result, Rezvan noted that the paleographic dating of this manuscript also indicated a date at the turn of the eight / ninth century CE.[6]

Although the dates generated by the radiocarbon dating at either confidence level do not rule out the possibility that this manuscript was produced in ?Uthma-n's time, palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd century hijra) date." Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a copy

 * The Uthman Qur'an (also referred to as "Osman's Koran") is a manuscripted copy of the Qur'an considered to be the oldest in the world and said to still have a stain of blood from the assassination of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan.


 * It is currently held in the library of the Telyashayakh Mosque, in the old "Hast-Imam" area of Tashkent, Uzbekistan, close to the grave of Kaffel-Shashi, the 10th Century Islamic scholar.

CMIIW, AFAIK, the Quran in Tashkent was a copy, not the original. And it was also disputed by the fact some of the page was changed (probably in attempt of renovating). Kunderemp (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Useful info
The following link may be useful:. MP (talk•contribs) 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Title of article
Since there is not enough evidence that this copy belongs to Uthman; the third caliph, therefore it is more appropriate to call it: Samarkant or Teshkend Manuscript —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the page should be moved to the title "Samarkand manuscript". E.g. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html concludes after argumentation to "So, the big question now is whether this is the Qur'an that belonged to the third caliph ʿUthmān? The answer is no." Eippi (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

References and Evidence
Is there any scholary references about the information mentioned in the article, other than the Journal article, which is not considered to be a reference Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How incomplete?
I took out the words that said "1/3 of the text remains" because, if the fragment runs from Surah 2 to Surah 43, it contains more like 2/3 of the Quran, because the low-numbered Surahs are generally much longer than the high-numbered ones. —Wegesrand (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirected Wiki
I don't know how wiki works.

But can someone add a redirect to this page based on the words " taschkent manuscript'? took me some time to find this wiki because of this common spelling/misspelling of it.

Why do you call this version a quranic manuscript....
if it only contains roughly a third(from Surah 7 to Surah 43) of the Quran(Cairo 1924 version)?

46.93.241.249 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)