The Qur'an and Wansbrough: Quranic pericopes and logias v. the canonized copy of the Qur'an part two

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 20, 2012 at 10:32

Hi Ianus

I just wanted to explain to the readers not familiar with literary criticism what John Wansbrough is saying and that the Qur'an was canonized in the 3rd century of Islam in Mesopotamia and this was acheived through the work of the great masorites (this activity can be dated to the 3rd century of islam) and it seems that almost all of them were non Arabs the likes of al-Tabari

Now that does not mean that there were no circulating pericopes or logias that were incorporated in what became the canonized Qur'an

Now here is the problem:

1. The Qur'an has many words that do not have any meaning the likes of al-kalala, ilaf, 3an yad, ababeel, sijeel, 3as3as, al-samad and clusters of strange letters that have no meaning and the masorites had no clue how to explain such phenomenon and why would it be that by the third century of Islam the masorites had no clue about the meaning of these words it just makes you wonder that there was indeed a long disconnect between the composition of such material and the canonization of the Qur'an

2. There are words in the Qur'an that have multiple reading the likes of MLK in surat al-fatiha or KFW in surat al-ikhlas and logic would dictate that Muhammad must have heard it in only one version and why were the masorites seem to be struggling in the 3rd century to tell us about how such words can be read as in the case of in hadhan lasahiran and why would it be this way unless there was indeed a long disconnect

These two examples really mean that there was a disconnect between the Quranic logias and pericopes and the canonization of such material and by the 3rd century when the Qur'an was canonized those reading such material had no clue about that is really ilaf or kalala or is it maaliki or maliki and why is that?

And what is most amazing is what Gerd Puin (of the sana' mosque Quranic manuscripts) tells us about the Quranic allusion of ahl al-ayka also ahl layka

Now I will explain it one more time to the readers and just follow me

1. ahl al-ayka also appears in a more primitive form in the Qur'an as ahl layka it means the people of the layka or ayka. But the masorites had no clue what to make out of this allusion and who are really these people and what is al-ayka and then we are told that al-ayka is really tangelwood! case closed

2. Now the word al-ayka must the Arabaized form of the Greek name of a city in the Nabataean kingdom called Leuke Kome or the white city and this is indeed what we can find in the first century Greek literature the likes of the Periplus

3. Now by the 3rd century CE the name Leuke Kome disappers from the Greek literary sources and it is replaced by Lawra

4. From the 3rd century on literary sources provide us with another name for the same place called al-Hawra which is the Arabized word for the Syriac word hawra or white or the white city.

5. Now we know that the Greek Lawra is really al-Hawra which used to be Leuke Kome

6. Now we know what became of Leuke Kome

7. Now how did the word al-ayka or layka make it to the Qur'an? when it really disappeared from the literary sources some 600-700 years bofore Muhammad?

8. The only explanation here that there must have been oral or written texts that have such name that were composed 600-700 years before Muhammad and were incorporated in what was to become the Qur'an and it must have been part of a lectionary or qeryana (The sana' qeryana?) and it was used in liturgy by communities that we do not very much about)

But this would detach the Qur'an from Muhammad

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".