Quranic Manuscripts: Epigraphic Evidence

By M. Qasmi

The intent of this paper is to reveal the true nature of the Arabic alphabet, and a glimpse of the
true history of the Quran. If one relies on passages within the Quran it can be observed that
this scripture seems to have been collected in the time of the exalted prophet. This having
stated, hadith propagists claim it was collected later. It is contended that the the first four
caliphs, fearing that the Quran would be lost and would disappear from the people, considered
collecting the Quran from fragments written on palm branches, flat stones, and pieces of
wood, and from those who had memorized it. All this has been suggested in a number of
accounts that vary in detail, however all agree that the Quranic codex in use today had been
collected in the time of Caliph Uthman.

Such cojuncture seems to have been propagated by second Century Hijri (late Umayyad)
rulers, for whatever reason, and has opened the "Pandora's box" when it comes to an attack on
the authenticity of the Quran. Critics claim that since it is expected that some of it would be
lost to those who assumed the responsibility for this task, except if they were infallible and
divinely protected from forgetting. As argued, the least that we can expect is that alteration
has occurred, for it is possible to fail in the effort to find two witnesses on some revelation
that was heard from the exalted prophet. They hence conclude that there can be no certainty
that omissions did not occur.

Another popular venue of attacking the authenticity of the Quran is that Kufic script (which is
a direct Nabataean derivative,) in which the Quran is said to have been originally written,
contained no dots. Hence, consonants of verbs could be read as actives or passives, and, worse
still, many of the consonants themselves could not be distinguished.

This paper is hence meant to refute such claims using epigraphic evidence, and to present a
completely new perspective of the idea that the Quran may in fact have been collected in the
form of a book during the lifetime of the exalted prophet.

A Look at Some Other Ancient Scripts

We have observed through previous discussions on this forum that Sabaic and Egyptian
languages were written in two distinct forms: Monumental, and Papyric.

We saw that Ancient Egyptian writing was of two types:

Hieroglyph: Monumental
Hieratic: Parchment/Papyrus

Likewise, this pattern is also observed in Sabaic language:

Musnad: Monumental
Zabur: Parchment/Papyrus

Now when it comes to Arabic, the general scientific and archaeological analysis concludes
that Arabic originated from Nabataean regions. Several inscriptions have been found in Petra
and other parts of the Jordanian desert that point to this. While North Arabian regions used
Nabataean for both monuments and papyrus, Arabic exhibits the Sabaic and Egyptian trend.

Kufic script (the name is not suggestive of where it originated) is extremely similar to the
Nabataean styled alphabet, which was used for monumental messages in Pre-Islamic Arabia
(and after).

What is interesting to note is that none of the parchment Quranic manuscripts (or portions
discovered thereof) are in this script until the the time of Caliph Uthman. In fact, Quranic
manuscript fragments found that can be dated to the first half of the 1st century Hijri are
Hijazi:

Hijazi - Parchment
Following are two samples of the Hijazi parchment scripts, the first showing verses from the
third chapter of the Quran, while the second sample is from al-Sajdah:

Begining of 1st C-Hijri

First half of 1st C-Hijri

Kufic - Monumental
Keeping the tradition of their ancestors, the Arabs transformed the Nabataean script into a
monumental font which is now referred to as Kufic. Inscriptions as early as the advent of the
Hijra itself have been found that support this notion:

4th year Hijri

Kufic – Parchment

Carbon dated to 2nd C-Hijri

Between 1st and 2nd C-Hijri

In the above manuscript, the diacritial dots have been added quite later, and this can be
noticed by the difference in colour as well as the fact that early Kufic indeed did not feature
dots.

A Distinct Pattern

All Stone inscriptions discovered in the Hijaz area are in Kufic, however, the oldest Quranic
parchment pieces discovered show a different style which is Italic Hijazi; these Hijazi samples
also feature native diacritical dots, unlike its monumental counterpart.

We already know that Nabataens were renowned for their stone-carved monuments. Owing to
the pattern we saw for south Semitic and Egyptian writing habits, it is likely that Arabia
followed a similar trend of using Hijazi font for parchment and daily affairs documents, and
Kufic for stone engravings. While Hijazi was popular for parchment, Kufic may have been
introduced for writing parchment documents during Hazrat Uthman's time, and thereon
heavily used for documents (while Hijazi lost its popularity).
Whether it points to the fact that Hijazi script did not actually did not originate from Hijaz,
and that North Arabian regions were using Kufic for monument and Hijazi for parchment
exclusively is something I have not found any clear evidence for.

What can be deduced is that traditional stories about the collection and compilation of the
Quran during Hazrat Uthman's time are a bit far fetched. Parchment pages of Quranic verses
(that seem to be torn off a book,) indicate that Quran was written in book format in Hijazi
script in early first Century Hijri. Kufic seems to have been used for parchment quite after,
likely during or after the third Caliph's time.

Diacritical Dots

It is contended that dots were not used in early Arabic since it was written in Nabataean form.
This is in fact true that Kufic is the direct Nabataean derivative; hence it was designed to be a
monumental script. However, the Hijazi shows evidence that such dots were used with it,
which may explain its utility in daily affairs of business and communication. In fact, a pre-
Islamic stone inscription was found that contained a curious mixture of Arabic and
Nabataean. One can even notice the diacritical dots used. This hybrid script may very well be
the "missing link" between the Arabic script and Nabataean itself.

Synopsis
From the preceding discussion two very important conclusions can be derived:

1) In Pre-Islamic times, and during the early part of the first Century Hijri, the people of
Arabia were probably using two types of fonts:

Kufic: Monumental (possibly for Nabataean as well)

Hijazi: Parchment/Papyrus (for Arabic communication)

2) Most of the dating regarding kufic parchment manuscripts is a matter of disagreement

between scholars. Where there is no disagreement is that Kufic script is present in all alleged
Uthmanian copies surviving to date.

Hence, in my opinion, presence of Quranic parchment/papyrus fragments in Hijazi script is

historical and archaeological evidence that points to the existence of compiled Quranic
manuscripts from before Caliph Uthman's time.

References
1) http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/collect.html
2) http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_quran_collection.htm
3) http://www.nabataea.net/who1.htm
4) http://www.islamic-awareness.org
5) F. V. Winnett & W. L. Reed with contributions from J. T. Milik & J. Starcky, Ancient
Records From North Arabia, 1970, University of Toronto Press: Toronto (Canada)
6) N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, 1939,
University of Chicago Press
7) Memory Of The World: San`a' Manuscripts, CD-ROM Presentation, UNESCO.
8) A. von Denffer, ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, 1994, The Islamic Foundation: Leicester (UK)

DRC©2008