Talk:Samarkand Kufic Quran

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Religious texts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts. defunct .Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Central Asia: Uzbekistan

Samarkand Kufic Quran is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Uzbekistan (assessed as Low-importance).

Russia Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article ignores the

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)[reply]

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

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."

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)[reply]

The following link may be useful: [1]. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]