CHAPTER 1:
THE INITIAL COLLECTION OF THE QUR'AN TEXT
1. THE QUR'AN'S DEVELOPMENT DURING MUHAMMAD'S LIFETIME.
A study of the compilation of the Qur'an text must begin with the character of the book itself as it was handed down by Muhammad to his companions during his lifetime. It was not delivered or, as Muslims believe, revealed all at once. It came piecemeal over a period of twenty-three years from the time when Muhammad began to preach in Mecca in 610 AD until his death at Medina in 632 AD. The Qur'an itself declares that Allah said to Muhammad: "We have rehearsed it to you in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually" (Surah 25.32).
Furthermore no chronological record of the sequence of passages was kept by Muhammad himself or his companions so that, as each of these began to be collected into an actual surah (a "chapter"), no thought was given as to theme, order of deliverance or chronological sequence. It is acknowledged by all Muslim writers that most of the surahs, especially the longer ones, are composite texts containing various passages not necessarily linked to each other in the sequence in which they were given. As time went on Muhammad used to say "Put this passage in the surah in which so-and-so is mentioned", or "Put it in such-and-such a place" (as -Suyuti, Al Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.141). Thus passages were added to compilations of other passages already collected together until each of these became a distinct surah. There is evidence that a number of these surahs already had their recognised titles during Muhammad's lifetime, as from the following hadith:
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) (in fact) said: Anyone who recites the two verses at the end of Surah al-Baqara at night, they would suffice for him. ... Abu Darda reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: If anyone learns by heart the first ten verses of the Surah al-Kahf, he will be protected from the Dajal. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.386).
At the same time, however, there is also reason to believe that there were other surahs to which titles were not necessarily given by Muhammad, for example Suratul-Ikhlas (Surah 112), for although Muhammad spoke at some length about it and said its four verses were the equal of one-third of the whole Qur'an, he did not mention it by name (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.387).
As the Qur'an developed Muhammad's immediate companions took portions of it down in writing and also committed its passages to memory. It appears that the memorisation of the text was the foremost method of recording its contents as the very word al-Qur'an means "the Recitation" and, from the very first word delivered to Muhammad when he is said to have had his initial vision of the angel Jibriil on Mount Hira, namely Iqra - "Recite!" (Surah 96.1), we can see that the verbal recitation of its passages was very highly esteemed and consistently practised. Nevertheless it is to actual written records of its text that the Qur'an itself bears witness in the following verse:
It is in honoured scripts (suhufin mukarramatin), exalted, purified, by the hands of scribes noble and pious. Surah 80.13-16.
There is evidence, further, that even during Muhammad's early days in Mecca portions of the Qur'an as then delivered were being reduced to writing. When Umar was still a pagan he one day struck his sister in her house in Mecca when he heard her reading a portion of the Qur'an. Upon seeing blood on her cheek, however, he relented and said "Give me this sheet which I heard you reading just now so that I may see just what it is which Muhammad has brought" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.156) and, on reading the portion of Surah 20 which she had been reading, he became a Muslim.
It nonetheless appears that right up to the end of Muhammad's life the practice of memorisation predominated over the reduction of the Qur'an to writing and was regarded as more important. In the Hadith records we read that the angel Jibril is said to have checked the recitation of the Qur'an every Ramadan with Muhammad and, in his final year, checked it with him twice:
Fatima said: "The Prophet (saw) told me secretly, 'Gabriel used to recite the Qur'an to me and I to him once a year, but this year he recited the whole Qur'an with me twice. I don't think but that my death is approaching.'" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.485).
Some of Muhammad's closest companions devoted themselves to learning the text of the Qur'an off by heart. These included the ansari Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Muadh ibn Jabal, Zaid ibn Thabit, Abu Zaid and Abu ad-Darda (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, pp. 488-489). In addition to these Mujammi ibn Jariyah is said to have collected all but a few surahs while Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, one of the muhajirun who had been with Muhammad from the beginning of his mission in Mecca, had secured more than ninety of the one hundred and fourteen surahs by himself, learning the remaining surahs from Mujammi (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab aI-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.457).
Regarding the written materials there are no records as to exactly how much of the Qur'an was reduced to writing during the lifetime of Muhammad. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that anyone had actually compiled the whole text of the Qur'an into a single manuscript, whether directly under Muhammad's express authority or otherwise, and from the information we have about the collection of the Qur'an after his death (which we shall shortly consider), we must rather conclude that the Qur'an had never been codified or reduced to writing in a single text.
Muhammad died suddenly in 632 AD after a short illness and, with his death, the Qur'an automatically became complete. There could be no further revelations once its chosen recipient had departed. While he lived, however, there was always the possibility that new passages could be added and it hardly seemed appropriate, therefore, to contemplate codifying the text into one harmonious whole. Thus it is not surprising to find that the book was widely scattered in the memories of men and on various different materials in writing at the time of Muhammad's decease.
Furthermore we shall see that the Qur'an itself makes allowance for the abrogation of its texts by Allah and, during Muhammad's lifetime, the possibility of further abrogations (in addition to a number of verses which had already been withdrawn) would likewise preclude the contemplation of a single text.
Still further, there appear to have been only a few disputes among the sahaba (Muhammad's "companions", i.e., his immediate followers) about the text of the Qur'an while Muhammad lived, unlike those which arose soon after his demise. All these factors explain the absence of an official codified text at the time of his death. The possible abrogation of existing passages, and the probable addition of further ayat (the Qur'an nowhere declares its own completeness or that no further revelations could be expected) prevented any attempt to achieve the result desired very soon thereafter by his closest companions. It also appears that new Qur'anic passages were coming with increasing frequency to Muhammad just before that fateful day, making the collection of the Qur'an into a single text at any time all the more improbable.
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah sent down his Divine Inspiration to His Apostle (saw) continuously and abundantly during the period preceding his death till He took him unto Him. That was the period of the greatest part of revelation, and Allah's Apostle (saw) died after that. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.474).
At the end of the first phase of the Qur'an, therefore, we find that its contents were widely distributed in the memories of men and were written down piecemeal on various materials, but that no single text had been prescribed or codified for the Muslim community. As-Suyuti states that the Qur'an, as sent down from Allah in separate stages, had been completely written down and carefully preserved, but that it had not been assembled into one single location during the lifetime of Muhammad (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.96). All of it was said to have been available in principle - Muhammad's companions had absorbed it to one extent or another in their memories and it had been written down on separate materials - while the final order of the various verses and chapters is also presumed to have been defined by Muhammad while he was still alive.
2. THE FIRST COLLECTION OF THE QUR'AN UNDER ABU BAKR.
If Muhammad had in fact bequeathed a complete, codified text of the Qur'an as is claimed by some Muslim writers (e.g. Abdul Kader - cf. Chapter 6), there would have been no need for a collection or recension of the text after his death. Yet, once the primary recipient of the Qur'an had passed away, it was only logical that a collection should be made of the whole Qur'an into a single text.
The widely accepted traditional account of the initial compilation of the Qur'an ascribes the work to Zaid ibn Thabit, one of the four companions of Muhammad said to have known the text in its entirety. As we shall see, there is abundant evidence that other companions also began to transcribe their own codices of the Qur'an independently of Zaid shortly after Muhammad's death, but the most significant undertaking was that of Zaid as it was done under the authority of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam, and it is to this compilation that the Hadith literature gives the most attention. It also became the standard text of the Qur'an during the caliphate of Uthman.
Upon Muhammad's death a number of tribes in the outer parts of the Arabian peninsula reneged from the faith they had recently adopted, whereupon Abu Bakr sent a large number of the early Muslims to subdue the revolt forcibly. This resulted in the Battle of Yamama and a number of Muhammad's close companions, who had received the Qur'an directly from him, were killed. What followed is described in this well-known hadith:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed. Then Abu Bakr said (to me): "You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle (saw). So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it (in one book)". By Allah! If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle (saw) did not do?" Abu Bakr replied "By Allah, it is a good project". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477).
Zaid eventually expressed approval of the idea in principle after Umar and Abu Bakr had both pressed the need upon him and agreed to set about collecting the text of the Qur'an into one book. One thing is quite clear from the narrative - the collection of the Qur'an is said quite expressly to have been something which Allah's Apostle did not do.
Zaid's hesitation about the task, partly occasioned by Muhammad's own disinterest in codifying the text into a single unit and partly by the enormity of it, shows that it was not going to be an easy undertaking. If he was a perfect hafiz of the Qur'an and knew the whole text off by heart, nothing excepted, and if a number of the other companions were also endowed with such outstanding powers of memorisation, the collection would have been quite simple. He needed only to write it down out of his own memory and have the others check it. Desai and others claim that all the huffaz of the Qur'an among Muhammad's companions all knew the Qur'an in its entirety to perfection, to the last word and letter, and Desai himself goes so far as to suggest that the power of thus retaining the Qur'an in the memory of those who learnt it by heart was no less than supernaturally acquired:
The faculty of memory which was divinely bestowed to the Arabs, was so profound that they were able to memorize thousands of verses of poetry with relative ease. Thorough use was thus made of the faculty of memory in the preservation of the Qur'aan. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.25).
He goes on to describe the memorising of the Qur'an as "this divine agency of Hifz" (p.26). If we are to take this assumption to its logical conclusion, we must conclude that the collection of the Qur'an would have been the easiest of tasks. If Zaid and the other qurra (memorisers) each knew, by divine assistance and purpose, the whole Qur'an to the last letter without any error or omission - this is the Muslim hypothesis - we would hardly have found him responding to the appeal to collect the Qur'an as he did. Instead of immediately turning to his memory alone he made an extensive search for the text from a variety of sources:
So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).
We saw earlier that the Qur'an, at the death of Muhammad, was scattered in the memories of men and on various written materials. It was to these that the young companion of Muhammad duly turned when preparing to codify the text into a single book. The two primary materials, amongst the others mentioned, were ar-riqa'a - "the parchments" - and sudur ar-rijal - "the breasts of men" (as-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.137). He looked not only to human memory but also to written materials, consulting as many of the latter as he could find no matter what their origin (i.e., white stones, etc.). It was to many companions that he turned and to all kinds of material upon which fragments of the Qur'an had been written.
His was not the action of a man believing he had been divinely endowed with an infallible memory upon which he could exclusively rely but rather of a careful scribe who was going to collect the Qur'an from all the possible sources where it was known to be, from scraps, fragments and portions. This was the action of a man conscious of the wide dispersal of the text who would assemble as much of it as he could to produce as complete and authentic a text as was humanly possible.
The earliest traditions of Islam make it quite clear that the search was widespread, though one finds later writers claiming that all the written materials Zaid is said to have relied on - the shoulder-blades of animals, parchments, pieces of leather, etc. - were all found stored in Muhammad's own household and that they were bound together to ensure their preservation. Al-Harith al-Muhasabi, in his book Kitab Fahm as-Sunan, said that Muhammad used to order that the Qur'an be transcribed and that, whereas it was indeed in different materials, when Abu Bakr ordered it to be collected into one text, these materials "were found in the house of the messenger of Allah (saw) in which the Qur'an was spread out" (as-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.137). They were thereafter gathered together and bound so that nothing could be lost.
The earliest records of Hadith literature, however, make it quite plain that Zaid conducted a wide search for the parchments and other materials upon which portions of the Qur'an had been inscribed. Desai also argues for a more limited field of research on the part of Zaid to collect the Qur'an, stating that Zaid was the only companion to be with Muhammad on the last occasion when Jibril went over the Qur'an with him (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.18) and that he only looked for those pieces of leather and other materials already mentioned upon which the Qur'an had been written under "the direct supervision of Rasulullah (saw)" (p.27). He states that although there were other texts of the Qur'an available, these had not been written down under Muhammad's supervision but by his companions relying on their memories. No evidences or documentation of any kind is given by Desai to show his sources for all these claims, in particular to prove that they are based on the earliest records available. In fact we have already. seen that, in respect of Muhammad's last recitation of the Qur'an with Jibril, the fact that it was recited twice by him was a secret divulged only to his daughter Fatima (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.485). This would hardly have been a secret if Zaid had been present on that occasion.
Likewise the earliest records of the collection of the Qur'an under Abu Bakr make no distinction between portions of the Qur'an written directly under Muhammad's supervision and those that were not, nor do they suggest that Zaid relied on the former alone. As we in due course shall see, this is a relatively modern interpretation of the research done by him to maintain the hypothesis that the Qur'an was perfectly compiled, but one without foundation in the earliest records.
There are traditions that show that, upon receiving a portion of the Qur'an, Muhammad would command his scribes (of whom Zaid was one) to write it down (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.481), but there is nothing in the very earliest works to support the idea that the whole Qur'an, as written under Muhammad's supervision, was already assembled in his own home.
There are a number of traditions in the Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud which suggest that Abu Bakr was the first to undertake an actual codification of the text, each of which reads very similarly to the others and follows this form:
It is reported ... from Ali who said: "May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, the foremost of men to be rewarded with the collection of the manuscripts, for he was the first to collect (the text) between (two) covers". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.5).
Even here, however, we find clear evidence that there were others who preceded him in collecting the Qur'an texts into a single written codex:
It is reported ... from Ibn Buraidah who said: "The first of those to collect the Qur'an into a mushaf (codex) was Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.135).
This Salim is one of only four men whom Muhammad recommended from whom the Qur'an should be learnt (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96) and he was one of the qurra (reciters) killed at the Battle of Yamama. As it was only after this battle that Abu Bakr set out to collect the Qur'an into a single text as well, it goes without saying that Salim's codification of the text must have preceded his through Zaid ibn Thabit.
3. PERSPECTIVES ON THE INITIAL COLLECTION OF THE QUR'AN.
At this stage we have a clear trend emerging. Official tradition focuses on the collection of the Qur'an by Abu Bakr as the first, foremost and, at times, only compilation of the text made upon Muhammad's death. Later writers have endeavoured to strengthen this view by suggesting that Zaid was the only man qualified for the task, that the whole Qur'an, no matter in what form, was found in Muhammad's apartments, and that it was to written portions inscribed under Muhammad's supervision alone that the redactor turned to compile his codex. Contemporary Muslim opinion goes even further to claim that the Qur'an, as thus compiled, is an exact record with not so much as a dot, letter or word added or lost - of the script as it was delivered to Muhammad.
On the other hand an objective analysis of the initial collection of the Qur'an, based on a rational assessment of the evidences without regard to sentiment or presupposition, can only go so far as to conclude that the text as compiled by Zaid, which later became the model for Uthman's standardised text, was simply the final product of an honest attempt to collect the Qur'an insofar as the redactor was able to do so from a wide variety of materials and sources upon which he was obliged to rely.
It is the very character of these sources that we should at this stage assess and reconsider. Zaid relied on the memories of men and various written materials. No matter how much those early companions sought to memorise the text perfectly, human memory is a fallible source, and, to the extent that a book the length of the Qur'an had been committed to memory, we should expect to find a number of variant readings in the text. As we shall shortly see, this anticipation proves to be well-founded.
The reliance on a host of portions of the Qur'an scattered among a number of companions must also lead to certain logical expectations. There exists a clear possibility that portions of the text may have been lost - the loose distribution of the whole text in many fragments and portions as opposed to a carefully maintained single text is adequate ground to make such an assumption and, as we shall see, the expectation again proves to be well-founded when the evidences are considered and assessed.
A typical example worth quoting at this point is found in the following hadith which plainly states that portions of the Qur'an were irretrievably lost in the Battle of Yamama when many of the companions of Muhammad who had memorised the text had perished:
Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23).
The negative impact of this passage can hardly be missed: lam ya'alam - "not known", lam yuktab - "not written down", lam yuwjad - "not found", a threefold emphasis on the fact that these portions of the Qur'an which had gone down with the qurra who had died at Yamama had been lost forever and could not be recovered.
The very fact of such a wide distribution of the Qur'an texts, however, appears to negate the possibility that anyone could have added anything to the text after Muhammad's death. Not being collected into a single text but spread among many companions, there exists a strong possibility that some of the text may have been lost, but at the same time there appears to be no such possibility that it could have been interpolated in any way. The retention of so much of the Qur'an in the memories of Muhammad's companions is a sure guarantee that no one could have added to it in any way and gained acceptance for his innovations.
Lastly, in considering the sources, we should not be surprised to find that other codices of the Qur'an text were being compiled in addition to that being executed by Zaid. Once again we look to the evidence that a number of companions had an extensive knowledge of the Qur'an and it is only to be expected that these would soon seek to preserve, in single codices, what was at that time still fresh in their memories and loosely transcribed on a selection of different materials. Once again we shall find our expectations fulfilled and will discover that the evidences strongly support the conclusions one would draw naturally about the compilation of a book such as the Qur'an rather than the hypothesis that the book was divinely preserved, to the last dot and letter, without loss or variation.
The possibility that part of the text may have been lost is strengthened by evidences in the Hadith literature which show that even Muhammad himself occasionally forgot portions of the Qur'an. One of these traditions reads as follows and is taken from one of the earliest works of Hadith:
Aishah said: A man got up (for prayer) at night, he read the Qur'an and raised his voice in reading. When morning came, the Apostle of Allah (saw) said: May Allah have mercy on so-and-so! Last night he reminded me a number of verses I was about to forget. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p.1114).
The translator has a footnote to this tradition, stating that Muhammad had not forgotten these verses of his own accord but had been made to forget them by Allah as a teaching for the Muslims. Whatever the purpose or cause, it is quite clear that Muhammad had occasion to forget passages that had been, as he proclaimed, revealed to him. The suggestion that Muhammad's oversight of such texts was not of his own doing but brought about through Allah's decree is based on the following text of the Qur'an:
None of our revelations (ayat) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten (nunsihaa) but We substitute something similar or better. Knowest thou not that Allah has power over all things? Surah 2.106
The word ayat is the word consistently used in the Qur'an for its own texts and the word nunsihaa comes from the root word nasiya which, wherever it appears in the Qur'an (as it does some forty-five times in its various forms), always carries the meaning "to forget".
Let us conclude this section. Zaid, quite obviously one of the companions of Muhammad who had an outstanding knowledge of the Qur'an, set about collecting its text so as to produce as genuine and authentic a codex as he possibly could. His integrity in this undertaking is not to be questioned and we may accordingly deduce from all the evidences he consulted that the single Qur'an text he finally presented to Abu Bakr was a basically authentic record of the verses and suras as they were preserved in the memories of the reciters and in writing upon various materials.
The evidences, however, do not support the modern hypothesis that the Qur'an, as it is today, is an exact replica of the original, nothing lost or varied. There is no evidence of any interpolation in the text and such a suggestion (occasionally made by Western writers) can be easily discounted, but there are ample evidences to indicate that the Qur'an was incomplete when it was transcribed into a single text (as we have already seen) and that many of its passages and verses were transmitted in different forms. In the course of this book we shall give more detailed consideration to these evidences and their implications.
4. THE MISSING VERSES FOUND WITH ABU KHUZAIMAH.
Before closing our study on the collection of the Qur'an during the caliphate of Abu Bakr it is important to study the brief mention made by Zaid of the two verses which he said he found only with Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari. The full text of the hadith on this subject reads as follows:
I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is: 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ... (till the end of Bara'a)'. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).
Insofar as the text speaks for itself without further enquiry, we can see quite plainly that, in his search for the Qur'an, Zaid was dependent on one source alone for the last two verses of Surat at-Tauba. At face value this evidence suggests that no one else knew these verses and that, had they not been found with Abu Khuzaimah, they would have been omitted from the Qur'an text. The incident suggests immediately that, far from there being numerous huffaz who knew the whole Qur'an off by heart to the last letter, it was, in fact, so widely spread that some passages were only known to a few of the companions - in this case, only one.
This ex facie interpretation of the narrative naturally undermines the popular sentiment among Muslims of later generations that the Qur'an was preserved intact because its contents were all known perfectly by all the sahaba of Muhammad who had undertaken to memorise it. A more convenient explanation for the hadith had to be found and we find it expressed in the following quotation from Desai's booklet:
The meaning of the above statement of Hadhrat Zaid should now be very clear that among those who had written the verses under the direct command and supervision of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Khuzaimah was the only person from whom he (Zaid) found the last two verses of Surah Baraa-ah written. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.20).
Although the hadith as recorded by al-Bukhari makes no mention of this, Desai claims that the statement that Abu Khuzaima alone had the last two verses of Surat at-Tauba (Bara'a) means that he was in fact the only one who had them in writing under Muhammad's direct supervision. He goes on to say:
It was known beyond the slightest shadow of doubt that these two verses were part of the Qur'aan. Hundreds of Sahaabah knew the verses from memory. Furthermore, those Sahaabah who had in their possession the complete recording of the Qur'aan in writing also had these particular verses in their written records. But, as far as having written them under the direct supervision of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was concerned, only Abu Khuzaimah (radhiallahu anhu) had these verses. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.21).
The maulana gives no evidences whatsoever in support of these statements. Nowhere in the earliest records of the Hadith literature is there any suggestion that hundreds of Muhammad's companions knew these verses and that others had them in writing, and that what Zaid intended to say was that Abu Khuzaima alone had them in writing directly from Muhammad. Desai's omission of any documentation for his statement is, in the circumstances, most significant.
Siddique, in his article in Al-Balaagh (p.2), also claims that when Zaid said "I could not find a verse" he actually meant he could not find it in writing. As said before, there is nothing in the hadith text itself to yield such an interpretation. From what source, then, do these learned authors obtain this view? It is derived from the following extract which is taken from the Fath al-Baari fii Sharh al-Bukhari of Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Asqalani ibn Hajar, the translation appearing in Burton's The Collection of the Qur'an on pages 127 and 128:
It does not follow from Zaid's saying that he had failed to find the aya from surat al Tawba in the possession of anyone else, that at that time it was not mutawatira among those who had learnt their Qur'an from the Companions, but had not heard it direct from the Prophet. What Zaid was seeking was the evidence of those who had their Qur'an texts direct from the Prophet. ... The correct interpretation of Zaid's remark that he had failed to find the aya with anyone else is that he had failed to find it in writing, not that he had failed to find those who bore it in their memories. (Fath al-Baari, Vol. 9, p.12).
The source from which Desai and Siddique derive their opinions is not from the earliest records of the compilation of the Qur'an but a much later commentary on the Sahih al-Bukhari done by the famous Muslim author al-Asqalani ibn Hajar who was born in 773 A.H. (1372 A.D.) and died in 852 A.H. The earliest source for the interpretation that Zaid was looking for the verses only in authorised written sources thus dates no less than eight centuries after Muhammad's death by which time, as is the case to this day, it had become fashionable to hold the view that the Qur'an had been widely known to perfection by all the companions of Muhammad who had memorised it. It is, therefore, a convenient interpretation read into the text of the hadith to sustain a more recent supposition. There is nothing in the text of the hadith itself, however, to support this interpretation. The extract continues with some very interesting comments:
Besides, it is probable that when Zaid found it with Abu Khuzaima the other companions recalled having heard it. Zaid himself certainly recalled that he had heard it. (Fath al-Baari, op.cit.).
While Desai boldly states that it was known "beyond the slightest shadow of doubt" that the last two verses of Surat at-Tauba were part of the Qur'an and that they were known by "hundreds of Sahaabah" in their memories and by others who had recorded them in writing, his source only goes so far as to suggest that it is "probable" that when Zaid produced them from Abu Khuzaima, the other companions recalled having heard them. A cautious suggestion that the others may have recalled having heard the verses has been transformed by Desai into a bold declaration that they were known by hundreds of them without the aid of recollection "beyond the slightest shadow of doubt".
Here is clear evidence that modern Muslim writers are out to establish a cherished hypothesis - the unquestionable perfection of the Qur'an text - instead of objectively assessing the factual evidences as they stand. Desai's source is only a comparatively recent work of interpretation and yet, even here, he cannot resist the temptation to expand it into wholesale allegations of fact.
Ibn Hajar goes on, on the same page, to say "al-Da'udi commented that Abu Khuzaima was not the sole witness. Zaid knew the verse. It was thus attested by two men", an indication that it was believed by other Muslim scholars that Zaid's statement was not to be manipulated into a claim that the verses were not found in writing but should rather be given its obvious meaning, namely, that no one else knew these verses at all.
What makes the convenient claims of Ibn Hajar, as repeated by Desai and Siddique, even less acceptable is the fact that there is a record in one of the very earliest works of tradition showing in greater detail what Zaid's statement really meant. The narrative reads:
Khuzaimah ibn Thabit said: "I see you have overlooked (two) verses and have not written them". They said "And which are they?" He replied "I had it directly (tilqiyya - 'automatically, spontaneously') from the messenger of Allah (saw) (Surah 9, ayah 128): 'There has come to you a messenger from yourselves. It grieves him that you should perish, he is very concerned about you : to the believers he is kind and merciful', to the end of the surah". Uthman said "I bear witness that these verses are from Allah". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.11).
This narrative implies that the incident took place during Uthman's reign and not at the time of the collection of the Qur'an under Abu Bakr, but it is clearly the same event that is under consideration. (Siddique in fact states that the records showing that Zaid also missed a verse at the time of the recension of the Qur'an under Uthman actually apply to the last two verses of Surat at-Tauba. We shall say more on this when discussing Uthman's recension shortly).
The significant feature of this narrative is that Zaid and the others are said to have missed these verses completely when transcribing the Qur'an. In fact the statement that Zaid only found them with Abu Khuzaima is hare stated to mean that it was only on the latter's initiative that the verses were recorded at all. He found it necessary to draw the compiler's attention to them - it was not Zaid's search for two verses he already knew that occasioned their inclusion. In fact the text goes on to say that Abu Khuzaima was asked where they should be inserted in the Qur'an and he suggested they be added to the last part of the Qur'an to be revealed, namely the close of Surat at-Tauba (Bara'a in the text).
When one considers this tradition with the relevant hadith in the Sahih al-Bukhari, certain facts cannot be avoided. The verses were missed completely, they were only recalled and thereafter included upon Abu Khuzaimah's initiative, and it was left to him to advise where they should be included. It is only by taking the word tilqiyya ("directly") to mean that he was the only companion who had these verses in writing under Muhammad's supervision that Muslim writers have been able to sustain the hypothesis that the verses were known to many of Muhammad's companions. It is surely quite obvious, however, that the word tilqiyya was used by Abu Khuzaima purely in the sense that he had the verses first-hand from Muhammad, thereby justifying their inclusion. What he was really saying was that he had not learnt them from a secondary source but from Muhammad himself and, therefore, they had to be included in the Qur'an. There is no warrant for the interpretation that he alone had them in writing under Muhammad's authority.
This convenient interpretation, in any event, goes right against the contents and implications of the narratives. If the verses had been well-known, Zaid would hardly have overlooked them. It was precisely because they were not known or remembered that Abu Khuzaima was obliged to point out the oversight. One cannot help asking these modern Muslim authors, on the basis of their own interpretation, whether Zaid would have included these verses in his redaction of the Qur'an if they had not been found "in writing under Muhammad's supervision" even though they were supposedly known in the memories of hundreds of the sahaba and were recorded In writing from other sources.
Our study shows that the collection of the Qur'an by Zaid under Abu Bakr was a gathering together of the texts of the Qur'an from widely divergent sources and materials where the Qur'an was scattered, so divergent that at the Battle of Yamama some passages were irretrievably lost and, in another case, only one of Muhammad's companions was aware of the text. "I searched for the Qur'an", Zaid declared, indicating that he did not expect to find all the texts of the book in the memory of any one man or on written materials in any one place.
The Qur'an thus compiled was the product of a widespread search for what was known in the memories of many men and had been inscribed upon various materials. This type of source-material hardly supports the notion and claim that the Qur'an, as eventually collected, was perfect to the last dot and letter. The Muslim hypothesis is the product of wishful sentiment, it is not based on an objective and realistic assessment of the facts contained in the earliest historical records of the initial collection of the Qur'an.
CHAPTER 2:
THE UTHMANIC RECENSION OF THE QUR'AN
1. DID ABU BAKR'S CODEX HAVE OFFICIAL STATUS?
What, ultimately, was the status of the Qur'an text codified by Zaid ibn Thabit for Abu Bakr? Was it merely a private text assembled for the convenience of the Caliph or was it intended to be an official recension for the growing Muslim community? To answer these questions one has to enquire into what happened to this manuscript after it had been compiled and the information furnished to us reads as follows:
Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with Umar, till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of Umar (ra). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).
Each one of the three possessors of this codex was a person of considerable prominence. Abu Bakr and Umar were Muhammad's immediate successors, the first and second caliphs of the Muslim world respectively. Hafsah, likewise, was a leading figure, being specifically described in the Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud as both bint Umar (the daughter of Umar, p.7) and zauj an-nabi (the wife of the Prophet, p.85). The codex was, therefore, certainly retained as the official copy of the first two Muslim rulers and was thereafter committed to an obviously distinctive caretaker of the text. It is another question, however, whether this copy became the official standardised collection of the Qur'an for the whole Muslim community.
Any collection made for Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, must nonetheless have had some special status especially as its nominated compiler Zaid ibn Thabit was widely regarded as one of the foremost authorities on the Qur'an text. His effort to compile as authentic a record as he could of the original Qur'an as it was handed down by Muhammad can only be highly commended and the overall authenticity of the resultant codex cannot be seriously challenged. It can fairly be concluded that Zaid's text was one of great importance and its retention in official custody during the caliphates respectively of Abu Bakr and Umar testify to its key significance during the time of the Qur'an's initial codification. There can be little doubt, however, that this codex was at no time publicised during those first two caliphates or declared to be the official text for the whole Muslim world. Desai argues that there was no need to "standardize and promulgate this collection as the only official text" at that time as the Qur'an was, according to him, still perfectly retained in the memories of the huffaz among the companions of Muhammad who remained alive (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.31). We have already seen that claims for the perfect knowledge of the Qur'an in the memories of the sahaba are based on assumptions and we cannot accept that Abu Bakr's codex was not given any public impact after its compilation because there was no need for this while Muhammad's companions still had it in their memories. It was precisely because Abu Bakr and Umar perceived the need for a carefully codified written text of the Qur'an as against reliance on the memories of men alone that it was put together in the first place.
It is more likely that Abu Bakr and Umar recognised that there were other masters of the text of the Qur'an, such as Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Mu'adh ibn Jabal and others we have already mentioned alongside Zaid ibn Thabit, who were authorities of equal standing with him and who were qualified to produce authentic codices of the Qur'an in written form.
The manuscript compiled by Zaid, highly prized as it was, nevertheless was not regarded with any greater authority than the others once these began to be put together and it was for this reason, therefore, that Zaid's codex was not publicly imposed on the whole community as the officially sanctioned text of the Qur'an.
Zaid's text was, in fact, virtually concealed after its compilation. Upon the death of Umar it passed into the private keeping of Hafsah, very much a recluse after Muhammad's death. Far from being given official publicity, it was virtually set aside and given no publicity at all. Desai suggests that it was "guarded" during those years "for future use" when the qurra among Muhammad's companions had finally passed away (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.31), but there is nothing in the earliest records to suggest that Zaid's text was compiled purely through foresight as to future conditions. Rather it was a perceived immediate need for a single written text that occasioned its compilation.
At the time of its codification Zaid knew that his text could not be regarded as an absolutely perfect record as some passages were acknowledged as having been lost and the redactor himself overlooked at least two verses until he was reminded of them by Abu Khuzaima. If Zaid and Abu Bakr were persuaded that his text was unquestionably authentic to the last word and letter, it would almost certainly have been given immediate public prominence.
On the other hand, if Zaid knew that it was only relatively authentic and no more accurate than the many other codices simultaneously being compiled by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and others, we can understand why it quickly disappeared into relative obscurity. By the time Uthman became caliph, although the other codices were gaining prominence in the various provinces, this codex had in fact receded into the private custody of one of the widows of the Prophet of Islam who simply kept it indefinitely in her personal care. It may have been compiled under official supervision, but it was never regarded as the actual official and solely authentic text of the Qur'an. It had become just one of many codices of equal authority that had been put together at roughly the same time.
2. UTHMAN'S ORDER TO BURN THE OTHER CODICES.
About nineteen years after the death of Muhammad, when Uthman had succeeded Abu Bakr and Umar as the third Caliph of Islam, a major new development took place in the standardising of the Qur'an text. The Muslim general Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman led an expedition into northern Syria, drawing his troops partly from Syria and partly from Iraq. It was not long before disputes arose between them as to the correct reading of the Qur'an. They had come from Damascus and Hems, from Kufa and Basra, and in each centre the local Muslims had their own codex of the Qur'an. The codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud became the standard text for the Muslims at Kufa in Iraq while the codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b became revered in Syria. Hudhayfah was disturbed at this and, after consulting Salid ibn al-As, he reported the matter to Uthman. What followed is described in the following hadith:
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).
For the first time in the official works of the Hadith literature we read of other codices that were being compiled, in addition to the one done by Zaid for Abu Bakr, and that these were widely accepted and well-known, certainly far more so than the codex of Zaid which by this time was in the private possession of Hafsah. While some of those texts consisted only of a selection of portions, it is clearly stated that others were complete codices of the whole Qur'an.
What was the motive for Uthman's order that these other codices should be destroyed and that the codex of Zaid alone should be preserved and copied out to be sent in replacement of the other texts to the various provinces? Was it because there were serious errors in these texts and that Zaid's alone could be considered a perfect redaction of the original text? There is nothing in the original records to suggest that this was the motive. The following tradition gives a more balanced picture of the circumstances and causes which prompted Uthman's action and why he chose Zaid's codex as the basis on which the Qur'an text was to be standardised for the Muslim community. Ali is reported to have said of Uthman:
By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your opinion in this matter of qira'at (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying 'My reading is superior to your reading'. That is a perversion of the truth. We asked him, 'What is your view (on this)?' He answered, 'My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement'. We replied, 'What a wonderful idea!' Someone from the gathering there asked, 'Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?' They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of Sa'id ibn al-'As and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (Uthman) said, 'Let the one write and the other dictate'. Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22).
The motive is twice stated in this extract to simply be the desire to bring consensus among the Muslims on the basis of a single Qur'an text. It was not to destroy the other manuscripts because they were considered unreliable but rather to prevent future dissension among the inhabitants of the different provinces. Desai, who agrees that these other codices were authentic texts of the Qur'an, states that they were destroyed purely to obtain uniformity in the text. He reasons that Zaid's codex was the "official" text and that the others were unofficially transcribed, but does not regard the variant readings in them as evidence of corruption of the text but rather as illustrative of the fact that, according to a hadith text, the Qur'an was revealed in seven different ways (cf. chapter 5). He says:
The simplest and safest way to ensure the prevalence of the standardized copy was to eliminate all other copies. (Desai, op.cit., p.33).
It was this objective alone - the "prevalence of a standardized copy", the unity of the Muslims on the basis of a single text - that motivated Uthman's action. After all, this was the reason why Hudhayfah had approached him the first place. "It was Hudhayfah who impressed upon Uthman (ra) the need to assemble the texts into a single text" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.35), Thus Desai adds that "The gathering and elimination of all other copies besides the standardized text was merely to ensure uniformity" (op.cit., p.33). Just as Abu Bakr, at the time of the first recension of the Qur'an, had sought to obtain a complete record of the text from all the diverse sources whence it could be obtained, so now Uthman sought to standardise the text as against the varying codices that were gaining authority in the different centres.
Why, then, did he choose Zaid's codex as the basis for this purpose? The tradition quoted above once again underlines the authority that Zaid enjoyed in respect of the text of the Qur'an and the overall authenticity of his codex could not be disputed, It was also done, as we have seen, under official supervision but cannot be regarded as having become the official text, the other codices having been "compiled unofficially" (Desai, op.cit., p.32). Its almost immediate concealment from public view and the lack of publicity given to it are proofs that it was never intended to be regarded as the standard text of the Qur'an.
Unlike the codices which were gaining fame and widespread acceptance in the provinces, Zaid's text was conveniently close at hand and, not being known among the Muslims in those provinces, it was not regarded as a rival text. The standardising of a Medinan text at the seat of Uthman's government also enabled him to suppress the popularity and authority of other reciters in areas where Uthman's rule had become unpopular because he was placing members of his own family, the descendants of Umayya who had opposed Muhammad for many years, in positions of authority over and above many more well-known companions who had been faithful to him throughout his mission. Zaid's text was, therefore, not chosen because it was believed to be superior to the others but because it conveniently suited Uthman's purposes in standardising the text of the Qur'an.
Uthman called for this text and it became promptly transformed from a private text shielded for many years in almost complete public obscurity into the official codex of the Qur'an for the whole Muslim community. It was Uthman who standardised Zaid's codex as the official text and gave it widespread prominence, not Abu Bakr. While Zaid was clearly one of the foremost authorities on the Qur'an his text as compiled under Abu Bakr cannot be regarded as having been more authentic than the others. The "official" supervision of its compilation was only that of the elected successor to Muhammad. Had it been the Prophet of Islam himself who had authorised and supervised the codification of the text, it could well have laid claim to being the official text of the Qur'an, but it was only the product of a well-meaning successor compiled by but one of the most approved authorities on the text. (We are not dealing here with a compilation ordered and supervised by the Prophet of Islam with a divine guarantee of its absolutely perfect preservation but rather with an honest attempt by a young man, ultimately at his own discretion as to what should be included or excluded, and that only under the eye of a subsequent leader, to produce as accurate a text as he possibly could).
Once again it must be borne in mind that, once compiled, Abu Bakr did not impose it upon the Muslim community as Uthman later did, so it cannot be regarded as having become the official codex of the Qur'an before Uthman's time as Desai and others wish to believe.
Uthman's action was drastic, to say the least. Not one of the other codices was exempted from the order that they be destroyed. It can only be assumed that the differences in reading between the various texts was so vast that the Caliph saw no alternative to an order for the standardising of one of the texts and the annihilation of the rest. The fact that none of the other texts was spared shows that none of the codices, Zaid's included, agreed with any of the others in its entirety. There must have been serious textual variants between the texts to warrant such action. One cannot assume that Zaid's text, hidden from public view, just happened to be the perfect text and that, wherever it differed from the others, they must have been in error. Such a convenient shielding of this codex from the disputes about the reading of the Qur'an is unacceptable when the matter is considered objectively.
Zaid's text was simply one of a number of codices done by the companions of Muhammad after his death and shared in the variant readings found between them all. In its favour is the consideration that it had been compiled under Abu Bakr by one of the foremost authorities of the Qur'an. Its preference also depended, however, on the fact that, not being widely known, it had been sheltered from the disputes surrounding the others and it was, of course, conveniently close at hand.
Furthermore, it was not an official text as we have seen but a compilation done by just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, in the same way as those of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and the others had been compiled. It was not the authorised text of Muhammad himself but simply one form of it among many then in existence and uncorroborated in every single point by the others in circulation. It was compiled under the discretion of only one man and came to official prominence purely because Uthman chose it as the appropriate one to represent the single codex he wanted to establish for the whole Muslim community.
Modern Muslim writers who make bold claims for the absolute perfection of the Qur'an text as it stands today are aware that evidences of a host of different readings in the earliest manuscripts will make such claims sound hollow indeed, so they argue that the differences were not in the texts themselves but only in the pronunciation of the Qur'an as it was recited.
Siddique states this argument in the following way: "'Usman was not standardising one out of several texts. There never was more than one text. 'Usman was standardizing the recitation of the Qur'an and making sure that it would remain in the dialect of the Quraish in which it was originally revealed. He was concerned at points of difference in intonation between Iraqi and Syrian troops in the Islamic army" (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.2). The claim is that, if there were any differences in reading, they were only in pronunciation, in "the recitation" and "intonation" of the text. This argument is based entirely on faulty premises. Pronunciation, recitation and intonation relate only to a verbal recital of the text and such differences would never have appeared in the written texts. Yet it was the destruction of these written texts that Uthman ordered.
We need to consider further that, in the earliest days of the codification of the Qur'an in writing, there were no vowel points in the texts. Thus differences in recitation would never have appeared in the written codices. Why, then, did Uthman burn them? There can only be one conclusion the differences must have existed in the texts themselves and, in the following three chapters, we shall see just how extensive those differences were. Uthman was standardising one text at the expense of the others and it was not little niceties in the finer points of recitation that occasioned his extreme action against the other codices but the prevalence of a vast number of variant readings in the text itself.
Muslims need to consider and ponder Uthman's action seriously. The Qur'an was believed to be the revealed Word of God and the codices then in existence were written out by the very closest companions of Muhammad himself. What value would be placed on those Qur'an manuscripts if they were still in existence today? These were hand-written codices carefully copied out, some as complete records of the whole Qur'an text, by the most prominent of Muhammad's companions who were regarded as authorities on the text. It was these codices that Uthman eliminated. Uthman burnt and destroyed complete manuscripts of the whole Qur'an copied out by Muhammad's immediate companions.
If there had not been serious differences between them, why would he thus have destroyed such cherished copies of what all Muslims believe to be the revealed Word of God? One cannot understand the casualness with which modern Muslim writers justify his action especially if, as Siddique claims, there had never been any differences in the texts. What would Muslims think if anyone had a ceremony today such as Uthman had then, and consigned a number of Qur'ans to the flames, especially if these were cherished hand-written texts of great antiquity? Uthman burnt such Qur'an texts and destroyed them. Only one explanation can account for this - there must have been so many serious variant readings between the texts themselves that the Caliph saw only one solution - the establishment of one of these as the official text for the whole Muslim community and the elimination of the others.
While Siddique emphatically declares "One Text, No Variants" and states that "there was never more than one text" (this clause is in bold letters in his article), Desai contradicts him by admitting that there were differences in the earliest texts, such differences including "textual variation" (op.cit., p.22), and by acknowledging that other codices were not necessarily identical to the one compiled by Zaid (p.23). Desai, however, also seeks to maintain the hypothesis that the Qur'an is word-perfect to this day, so he argues that all the variants that existed were part of the divinely authorised seven different readings of the Qur'an and states that, as these readings were not known to all the Muslims, Uthman wisely decided to destroy the evidences in the interests of obtaining a single text. He says:
Hadhrat Uthmaan's measure of eliminating all other authorized and true versions of the Qur'aan Majeed was necessitated by the disputes which arose in the conquered territories - disputes among new Muslims ignorant of the other forms of authorized Qira'at. Since a particular Ustaad imparted only a specific Qira'at, they remained unaware of the other authorized versions. . . . Scrutinizing each and every copy would have proven too laborious and difficult a task. The simplest and safest way to ensure the prevalence of the standardized copy was to eliminate all other copies. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.32,33).
So it became expedient to eliminate six authorised forms of Qira'at and retain just one and, although the most meticulous effort must have gone into writing and completing the other codices of the Qur'an, the reading of these texts would have been too much like hard work for the Caliph. One can only marvel at the manner in which such Muslims can unemotionally reason favourably about the wholesale destruction of what are said to have been authentic codices of the book they cherish so dearly. It would be interesting to see what the maulana's reaction would be if someone today ordered a similar destruction of such highly-prized hand-written texts of the Qur'an for such expedient reasons as he gives in these quotes, or if someone decided to make a film of the events surrounding Uthman's decree.
The order to consign all but one of the Qur'ans in existence to the flames at such a crucial time cannot be explained away so lightly. Muslim writers are not seriously assessing the gravity of Uthman's decree. As we shall see, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud reacted very strongly to Uthman's order and we are also informed that when Uthman enquired into the grievances among the Muslims who were rising in opposition to him, one of their complaints against him was his destruction of the other Qur'an codices, that he had "obliterated the Book of Allah" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.36). They significantly did not just say it was the masahif (manuscripts), the usual word used for the Qur'an codices compiled before Uthman's decree, but the kitabullah, the "Scripture of Allah", to emphasise their severe antagonism to his wanton extermination of such important manuscripts of the Qur'an.
In the coming chapters we shall see just how extensive the variant readings were and how strongly the texts of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Zaid ibn Thabit, Abu Musa and others differed from each other. Let us here, however, briefly consider certain important developments in the standardising of Zaid's text as the preferred text of the Qur'an.
3. THE REVISION OF ZAID'S CODEX OF THE QUR'AN.
One would think, in the light of the bold claims that Zaid's text was always absolutely perfect, that even if it could not have been written out originally without a wide search for its contents, its reproduction at this stage would have been a simple matter of copying it out just as it stood. Yet we find even here further evidence that it was not previously looked on with any special favour or regarded as the official text of the Qur'an, for Uthman immediately ordered that a recension of his codex take place and that it be corrected where necessary. The record of what duly transpired reads as follows:
Narrated Anas (ra): 'Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts (of the Qur'an). 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, "If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur'an, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their language". So they acted accordingly. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.466).
We have already seen that Sa'id ibn al-As was regarded as an expert in the Arabic language and he and the other two redactors were chosen because they came from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca from which Muhammad too had come, whereas Zaid was from Medina. Uthman wanted the standardised Qur'an to be preserved in the Quraysh dialect in which Muhammad had originally delivered it. Accordingly, if these three found themselves differing with Zaid's text at any point, it was to be corrected and rewritten in the original dialect. Once again we cannot possibly be dealing purely with fine points of recitation or pronunciation, for any differences here would not have been reflected in the written text. Uthman clearly had actual amendments to the written text in mind when he summoned the four redactors together.
There is even evidence that Uthman went further than just requiring a committee of four to oversee the recension of Zaid's codex in that he became involved in a general consultation with a number of other prominent Muslims in Medina on the recension of the Qur'an and a more general revision may well have taken place (As-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.139).
Not only this but we find yet again that Zaid was to recall yet another verse that had been missing from the text. The record of this incident reads:
Zaid said 'I missed a verse from al-Ahzab (Surah 33) when we transcribed the mushaf (the written text of the Qur'an under Uthman's supervision). I used to hear the messenger of Allah (saw) reciting it. We searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: "From among the believers are men who are faithful in their covenant with Allah" (33.23). So we inserted it in the (relevant) surah in the text. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.138).
A similar record of the omission of what is now Surah 33.23 from the recension done under Uthman is recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 6, p.479). At first sight the story is very similar to the omission of the last two verses of Surat Bara'a in the compilation of the Qur'an text done by Zaid for Abu Bakr. A recension was done, a short passage was found to be omitted, and it was discovered with Khuzaima ibn Thabit. Added to this, as we have seen (page 35), is the hadith that traces the omission of the last two verses of Surat Bara'a (9. 127-128) to the time of Uthman's reign. Siddique, in consequence, states that the story of the missing verse from Surat al-Ahzab really refers to the verses from Surat Bara'a and that the hadith about these verses has a better authority than the tradition about the other verse (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.2).
It is not possible at this time in history to make any conclusive deductions in this respect, save and except to say that it does appear to be strange that it was only nineteen years after Muhammad's death that Zaid suddenly remembered, for the first time, another verse that was missing from the Qur'an and coincidentally found it with the same companion as the other two verses. We also saw that it was Khuzaimah himself who at that time brought the redactor's attention to the omission of the two verses from Surat Bara'a and, if yet another text was also omitted and known to him alone, it needs to be explained why he remained silent about it.
Desai, however, accepts the authority of the hadith at face value and explains the phenomenon by suggesting that Surah 33.23 was indeed included in Zaid's original codex but was overlooked when the copying of the texts took place under Uthman's recension and says, once again, that it was well known to "the numerous other Huffaaz" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.38). This argument just cannot stand the test of critical analysis.
The mushaf from which Zaid and his assistants copied the manuscripts was not destroyed along with the other codices but was returned to Hafsah after the work was complete, so if the relevant verse had been included in it, there would hardly have been any need for a search for it till it was found with Khuzaima. Likewise one cannot believe that, if it was included in the original codex, it suddenly became overlooked every time a copy was made for one of the provinces. To the extent that the hadith reflects a true development in the text of the Qur'an, Desai's argument about the meaning of its omission in the transcribed copies is quite simply untenable and does not hold water.
At face value the hadith can only mean that it was only after Zaid's second recension of the Qur'an text that he recalled the verse for the first time - a not too improbable occurrence if he had not been required to give detailed and exact attention to the actual authenticity of the text of the Qur'an in the years between his completion of the codex for Abu Bakr and Uthman's order for a second redaction.
Siddique argues, on the face value of the hadith, that it once again means that Zaid could not find it in writing with anyone else, implying that it was well-known in the memories of the sahaba. He argues against the translation of the hadith as we have given it in Zaid's words, namely "I missed a verse from al-Ahzab.." and says this is "slightly inaccurate" and that it should read "I could not find a verse.." (op.cit., p.2). In other words, Zaid did not entirely overlook the verse but, being well aware of it, merely struggled to find it in writing. The key word here in the hadith is faqada which means "to have lost, to be deprived of, to have mislaid", and is used in the context of the bereavement of someone who is deceased. Clearly therefore it means, in the context of this hadith, not that Zaid was trying to find a text in writing that was already well-known to everybody, but rather that he was seeking to recover a verse which had indeed been lost entirely from the text and could only be found with Khuzaima.
To the extent that this tradition is historically true it shows that even Zaid's original attempt to produce a codex as complete as it could be was not entirely successful and it was only after the other manuscripts had been copied out that the relevant verse was hastily included. More and more the arguments for a perfect Qur'an, nothing added or lost with no variants in the text, become untenable and are shown to be the fruits of pious sentiment alone.
4. THE QUR'AN TEXT AS STANDARDISED BY UTHMAN.
Uthman succeeded in his immediate objective, namely to impose a single text of the Qur'an on the Muslim world with the simultaneous destruction of all the other codices in existence. To the extent that the Muslim world today indeed has a single text of its revered scripture, it cannot be said that this text is a precise record of the Qur'an as Muhammad delivered it or that its claim to be inerrant was unchallenged by others which were brought to codification at the same time. It was not Allah who arranged the text exactly in the form in which it has come down but rather the young man Zaid and that only to the best of his ability and according to his own discretion, nor was it Muhammad who codified it for the Muslim ummah (community) but Uthman ibn Affan, and that only after a complete revision had taken place with the simultaneous destruction of the other codices which differed from it and which, nevertheless, were compiled by other companions of Muhammad whose knowledge of the Qur'an was in no degree inferior to that of Zaid ibn Thabit.
Even after the final recension of the Qur'an during Uthman's reign disputes still came to the fore in respect of the authenticity of the text. A very good example concerns a variant reading of Surah 2.238 which, in the Qur'an as standardised by Uthman, that is, the Qur'an as it stands today, reads: "Maintain your prayers, particularly the middle prayer (as-salaatil wustaa), and stand before Allah in devoutness". The variant reading of this Verse is given in this hadith:
Abu Yunus, freedman of Aishah, Mother of Believers, reported: Aishah ordered me to transcribe the Holy Qur'an and asked me to let her know when I should arrive at the verse Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin (2.238). When I arrived at the verse I informed her and she ordered: Write it in this way, Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa salaatiil 'asri wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin. She added that she had heard it so from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.64).
Aishah, a widow of the Prophet of Islam, stated that after the words wa salatil wusta ("the middle prayer") the scribe was to insert wa salatil asr ("and the afternoon prayer"), giving Muhammad himself as the direct authority for this reading. On the same page there is a very similar tradition wherein Hafsah, the daughter of Umar and another of Muhammad's wives, likewise ordered her scribe Amr ibn Rafi to make the same amendment to her text.
This could not have been the codex of Zaid in Hafsah's possession but was most probably a text written out for her before her father Umar died, whereupon she inherited Zaid's codex. Ibn Rafi made it plain he was writing the text at her express command and it is specifically referred to as a separate codex by Ibn Abi Dawud. Under the heading Mushaf Hafsah Zauj an-Nabi (saw) ("The Codex of Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him") he gives a number of authorities for the tradition we are considering, showing that it was widely known, yet he records no other variant readings in her text. One of these traditions reads as follows:
It is reported by Abdullah on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abdul Malik who reported from Yazid (etc.) ... It is written in the codex of Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet (saw): "Observe your prayers, especially the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.87).
We are told that this variant, the addition of the words wa salatil asr after the words wa salatil wusta was also recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka'b as well as being found in the codex of Umm Salama, another of Muhammad's wives who survived him (Ibn Abi Dawud, op. cit., p.87). It was also recorded by Ibn Abbas.
This variant reading must have been recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka'b before the recension of the Qur'an under Uthman as his codex is definitely stated to have been one of those destroyed by Uthman and it is probable that it was so inscribed in the others as well. It did cause some discussion and concern after Uthman's recension, however, and the knowledge of its existence could not be suppressed. Some said it was an exhortation to particularly observe the afternoon prayer in addition to the middle prayer, whereas others said it was merely an elucidation of the standard text (that is, that the salatil-wusta was in fact the salatil-asr). An example of the latter interpretation reads as follows:
It is said by Abu Ubaid in his Fadhail al-Qur'an ("The Excellences of the Qur'an") that the purpose of a variant reading (al-qira'atash-shaathat) is to explain the standard reading (al-qira'atal-mash'huurat) and to illustrate its meaning, as in the (variant) reading of Aishah and Hafsah, waas-salaatiil wustaa salaatiil 'asr. (as-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.193).
It was the inability of Uthman to entirely suppress the evidences of such variant readings that led to the destruction of Hafsah's codex during the time when Marwan ibn al-Hakam was governor of Medina (by which time the seat of government in the Muslim world had passed to Damascus in Syria under Mu'awiya, the son of Muhammad's long-standing enemy Abu Sufyan who only became a Muslim upon the conquest of Mecca). While Hafsah was still alive she refused to give her codex up to him although he anxiously sought to destroy it (Ibn Abi Dawud, op.cit., p.24), and he only succeeded in obtaining it upon her death from her brother Abdullah ibn Umar, whereupon he destroyed it fearing, he said, that if it became well-known the variant readings Uthman sought to suppress would again recommence in the recitation of the Qur'an. (There are sources other than Ibn Abi Dawud which attribute other variant readings to Hafsah's codex, for example she read fii thikrillaah with Ibn Mas'ud for fii janbilaah in Surah 39.56).
The Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an may well have established only one text as the authorised text for the whole Muslim world, but it simultaneously eliminated a wealth of codices which were widely accepted in the various provinces and which had as much right as Zaid's to be recognised as authentic copies. At-Tabari records (1.6.2952) that the people said to Uthman "The Qur'an was in many books, and you have now discredited them all but one", indicating that Zaid's text was not considered to enjoy any preference over them in authenticity or authority. Nevertheless, even though the codices were eliminated, the variant readings between them were recorded and well-known and in the next chapter we shall consider some of these and the codices in which they appeared, in particular those of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b.
CHAPTER 3:
THE CODICES OF IBN MAS'UD AND UBAYY IBN KA'B
1. ABDULLAH IBN MAS'UD: AN AUTHORITY ON THE QUR'AN TEXT.
No study of the early transmission of the Qur'an would be complete without an analysis of the contribution of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, one of the most prominent of Muhammad's companions. He was one of his earliest disciples and we are told that he was "the first man to speak the Qur'an loudly in Mecca after the apostle" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.141). Throughout Muhammad's twelve years of mission at Mecca and until his death at Medina some ten years later Ibn Mas'ud applied himself very diligently to learning the Qur'an by heart. There is much evidence to show that he was regarded by Muhammad himself as one of the foremost authorities on the Qur'an, if not the foremost, as appears from the following hadith:
Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96)
The same tradition in the other great work of hadith also specifically mentions that Muhammad "started from him" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312), showing that he was deliberately mentioned first, indicating that Muhammad regarded him as the foremost authority on the Qur'an. Among others mentioned is Ubayy ibn Ka'b who, as we have already seen, also compiled a separate codex of the Qur'an before it was destroyed by Uthman.
It is significant to find no mention of Zaid ibn Thabit in this list which shows quite conclusively that Muhammad regarded Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b as far better read in the Qur'an than him. In another hadith we find further evidence of Ibn Mas'ud's prominence in respect of his knowledge of the Qur'an:
Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) (ra): By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah's Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488).
In a similar tradition we read that he added to this that he had recited more than seventy surahs of the Qur'an in Muhammad's presence, alleging that all Muhammad's companions were aware that no one knew the Qur'an better than he did, to which Shaqiq, sitting by, added "I sat in the company of the Companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312).
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud obviously had an exceptional knowledge of the Qur'an and, as Muhammad himself singled him out as the first person to whom anyone should go who wished to learn the Qur'an, we must accept that any codex compiled by him would have as much claim to accuracy and completeness as any other. That he was one of the companions who did in fact collect the Qur'an apart from Zaid ibn Thabit cannot be disputed. Ibn Abi Dawud devotes no less than nineteen pages of his work on the compilation of the Qur'an manuscripts to the variant readings found between his text and that of Zaid which was ultimately the one standardised by Uthman (Kitab al-Masahif, pp. 54-73).
Having become a Muslim before even Umar, the second Caliph of Islam, Ibn Mas'ud had been on the hijrahs to both Abyssinia and Medina and was one of the highly regarded muhajirun who had followed Muhammad from Mecca. He participated in both the Battles of Badr and Uhud and his close association with the Prophet of Islam and prestige in the knowledge of the Qur'an resulted in his codex of the Qur'an being accepted as the standard text of the Muslims at Kufa before the recension done by Uthman. His reaction to Uthman's order that all codices of the Qur'an other than Zaid's should be burnt is most informative.
2. IBN MAS'UD'S REACTION TO UTHMAN'S DECREE.
When Uthman sent out the order that all codices of the Qur'an other than the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit should be destroyed, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud refused to hand over his copy. Desai openly speaks of "Hadhrat Ibn Mas'ud's initial refusal to hand over the compilation" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.44), but Siddique, in his article, prefers to leave the impression that no such objection from the distinguished companion of Muhammad ever took place, saying instead, "There is no indication that he ever objected to the 'text of Hafsah' during the entire Caliphate of Umar" (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.1). But why should he have raised any objection to Zaid's codex at that time? His own codex had become well-established at Kufa while Zaid's had receded into relative obscurity, simply being retained by the Caliph without any attempt whatsoever to establish it as the standard text for the Muslim community.
It was only when this codex suddenly came into prominence and was decreed to be the official text during Uthman's reign that Ibn Mas'ud found his codex being threatened. He immediately refused to hand it over for destruction and we are told by Ibn al-Athir in his Kamil (III, 86-87) that when the copy of Zaid's text arrived for promulgation at Kufa as the standard text, the majority of Muslims there still adhered to Ibn Mas'ud's text. It must be quite obvious to any objective scholar that, just as Zaid had copied out a codex for Abu Bakr, so Ibn Mas'ud simultaneously compiled a similar codex and, given the latter's exceptional knowledge of the Qur'an, his text must be considered to be as accurate and reliable as that of Zaid. The two codices were of probable equal authority and reliability.
Because there are a wealth of evidences of differences between the two, however, and as it was Zaid's text that became the standardised text after Uthman's recension and the only one used to this day in the Muslim world, it is intriguing to find Muslim writers trying to play down and minimise the importance of Ibn Mas'ud's codex.
Desai claims that "his copy contained notes explanations as well. His copy was for his personal use, not for the use of the Ummah at large" (op.cit., p.45). No evidence is given for this claim. One of the great deficiencies in Desai's booklet is the almost total lack of documentation in respect of the factual allegations the author makes. Virtually nowhere do we find a reference to the traditional chapter and verse. The reader is expected to presume that the facts he alleges are well-founded. Desai leaves no room in his booklet for references by which a student can check whether the contents are factually reliable.
In fact it is well known that Ibn Mas'ud's codex, far from being for his personal use only, was widely used in the region where he was based and, just as Ubayy ibn Ka'b's codex became the standard text Syria before Uthman's recension, so Ibn Mas'ud's likewise became the standard text for the Muslim ummah in and around Kufa in Iraq (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab, p. 13).
Ahmad Von Denffer likewise attempts to minimise the importance of the other codices, saying of Ubayy ibn Ka'b's codex that "it was a mushaf for his own personal use, in other words, his private notebook" and goes on to say of all the other codices that these "personal notebooks became obsolete and were destroyed" (Ulum al-Qur'an, p.49). It is virtually impossible to understand how whole manuscripts of the Qur'an, carefully transcribed and widely used in the various provinces, can be reduced to the status of "personal notebooks", least of all how such codices could have become "obsolete" at any time.
Muslim writers resort to such strange reasonings solely because they are determined to maintain the declared textual perfection of the Qur'an as it stands today to the last dot and letter. As this text is only a revision and reproduction of the codex of just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, they have to circumvent the fact that other equally authoritative codices of single companions existed and that all of them, Zaid's included, differed in many key respects. Thus the text of Zaid has become elevated to "official" status right from the time of its compilation, the other texts have been downgraded to the status of "personal notebooks", and the argument runs that they were destroyed because they differed from one another without any consideration for the fact that Zaid's own codex likewise differed from each of them in turn.
There are solid evidences to show why Abdullah ibn Mas'ud at first refused to hand over his codex for destruction. While Desai claims that it was only because he attached sentimental value to his compilation (p.45) and Siddique states that there was no difference between his text and Zaid's, we find, in fact, that it was precisely because the great companion of Muhammad considered his own text to be superior to and more authentic than Zaid's that he was angered at Uthman's decree. Before Hudhayfah had ever gone to Uthman to call upon him to standardise a single text of the Qur'an, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had some sharp words with him and reacted to his proposal that the different readings in the various provinces should be suppressed.
Hudhaifah said "It is said by the people of Kufa, 'the reading of Abdullah (ibn Mas'ud)', and it is said by the people of Basra, 'the reading of Abu Musa'. By Allah! If I come to the Commander of the Faithful (Uthman), I will demand that they be drowned". Abdullah said to him, "Do so, and by Allah you will also be drowned, but not in water". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.13). Hudhaifah went on to say, "0 Abdullah ibn Qais, you were sent to the people of Basra as their governor (amir) and teacher and they have submitted to your rules, your idioms and your reading". He continued, "0 Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, you were sent to the people of Kufa as their teacher who have also submitted to your rules, idioms and reading". Abdullah said to him, "In that case I have not led them astray. There is no verse in the Book of Allah that I do not know where it was revealed and why it was revealed, and if I knew anyone more learned in the Book of Allah and I could be conveyed there, I would set out to him". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.14).
Modern writers such as Siddique and others maintain that the only differences between the recitations of the text and the reading of each companion (
qira'at) were in pronunciations and dialectal expressions, yet it is once again obvious that what Hudhayfah had in mind was the elimination of the actual written codices being used by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and the others - you cannot drown a verbal recitation - and it was this proposal which so angered Ibn Mas'ud and which proves that the differences in reading were in the texts themselves. In other traditions we find clear evidences that he regarded Zaid's knowledge of the Qur'an, and therefore his written codex of the text, as inferior to his.
After all, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had become a Muslim at Mecca before Zaid was even born and he had enjoyed years of direct acquaintance with Muhammad while the early portions of the Qur'an were being delivered before Zaid ever accepted Islam.
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid ibn Thabit had embraced Islam". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.17). "I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah?" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.15).
In another source we find that, when Uthman's order came for the destruction of the other codices and the uniform reading of the Qur'an according to Zaid's codex alone, Ibn Mas'ud gave a khutba (sermon) in Kufa and declared:
"The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth". (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444).
In the light of all these traditions, which can hardly be discounted, the evasive explanations of modern Muslim writers cannot be accepted. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud clearly resisted Uthman's order, not because of sentiment as Desai suggests, but clearly because he sincerely believed that his text of the Qur'an, gained firsthand from Muhammad himself, was more authentic than the text of Zaid. This conclusion cannot seriously be resisted by a sincere student of the history of the Qur'an text and its initial compilation.
It is also quite clear that the differences in reading were not confined to forms of dialect in pronunciation but in the actual contents of the text itself. An examination of some of these textual differences will show just how extensive those variant readings really were.
3. THE VARIANT READINGS IN IBN MAS'UD'S CODEX.
One of the anomalies recorded in respect of Ibn Mas'ud's text is that it is said to have omitted the Suratul-Fatihah, the opening surah, and the mu'awwithatayni, the two short surahs with which the Qur'an ends (Surahs 113 and 114). The form of these surahs has some significance - the first is purely in the form of a prayer to Allah and the last two are "charm" surahs, being recommended incantations of refuge with Allah which Muslims should recite as protection against sinister forces and practices. One tradition states that Ubayy ibn Ka'b was at one time challenged with the suggestion that Ibn Mas'ud had made certain negative statements about these surahs and he replied that he had asked Muhammad about them and was informed that they were a part of the revelation of the Qur'an and should be recited as such (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.472).
The possibility that Ibn Mas'ud may have denied that these three surahs were a part of the Qur'an vexed early Muslim historians. The well-known Iranian philosopher and historian Fakhruddin ar-Razi, who wrote a commentary on the Qur'an titled Mafatih al-Ghayb ("The Keys of the Unseen") and who lived in the sixth century of Islam (1149-1209 AD) gave some attention to this problem and sought to prove that the allegations were unfounded.
Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient books that Ibn Mas'ud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the Mu'awwithatayni are part of the Qur'an are embarrassing in their implications... But the Qadi Abu Bakr said "It is not soundly reported from him that they are not part of the Qur'an and there is no record of such a statement from him. He omitted them from his manuscript as he did not approve of their being written. This does not mean he denied they were part of the Qur'an. In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be inscribed in the text (mushaf) unless so commanded by the Prophet (saw) ... and he had not heard that it had been so commanded". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.186).
Another Muslim historian, an-Nawawi, in his commentary on the Muhaththab said that the Fatihah and the two "charm" surahs were unanimously regarded by the Muslims as part of the Qur'an and that what had been said about Ibn Mas'ud was false and unjustified (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.187). The famous dogmatic Muslim scholar Ibn Hazm likewise rejected the suggestion that Ibn Mas'ud had omitted these surahs from his codex:
Ibn Hazm said in the Muhalla, "This is a lie attributed to Ibn Mas'ud. Only the reading of Asim from Zirr is authentic and in that are both the Fatiha and Mu'awwithatayni". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.187).
The record goes on to say that Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani however, in his commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukhari (his famous Fath al-Baari), accepted these reports as sound, quoting authorities who stated that Ibn Mas'ud would not include the two "charm" surahs in his manuscript as Muhammad had, to his knowledge, only commanded that they be used as incantations against evil forces. He regarded the isnad (the chain of transmitters) for this record as totally sound and attempted to harmonise the conflicting records instead, suggesting that Ibn Mas'ud accepted the Fatiha and "charm" surahs as genuinely revealed but was reluctant to inscribe them in his written text.
As Uthman ordered all the codices of the Qur'an other than Zaid's to be destroyed and as Ibn Mas'ud was eventually compelled to hand his over for elimination, it cannot be determined whether the three relevant surahs were actually included in his codex or not. If they were omitted, the reason is either that he was unaware that Muhammad had expressly stated that they were part of the Qur'an text (as alleged by Ubayy) or, less probably, that Ibn Mas'ud had actually determined that they were not part of the actual kitabullah, the Book of Allah, and that the other companions had assumed they were because they had come to Muhammad in the same form as the other surahs of the Qur'an.
When we come to the rest of the Qur'an, however, we find that there were numerous differences of reading between the texts of Zaid and Ibn Mas'ud. As mentioned already the records in Ibn Abi Dawud's Kitab al-Masahif fill up no less than nineteen pages and, from all the sources available, one can trace no less than 101 variants in the Suratul-Baqarah alone. We shall mention just a few of the differences here in illustration of the nature of the variations between the texts.
1. Surah 2.275 begins with the words Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna - "those who devour usury will not stand". Ibn Mas'ud's text had the same introduction but after the last word there was added the expression yawmal qiyaamati, that is, they would not be able to stand on the "Day of Resurrection". The variant is mentioned in Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fadhail al-Qur'an (cf. N�ldeke, Geschichte, 3.63; Jeffery, Materials, p.31). The variant was also recorded in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif, a secondary codex dependent on Ibn Mas'ud's text, Taiha likewise being based at Kufa in Iraq where Ibn Mas'ud was based as governor and where his codex was widely followed (Jeffery, p.343).
2. Surah 5.91, in the standard text, contains the exhortation fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin' - "fast for three days". Ibn Mas'ud's text had, after the last word, the adjective mutataabi'aatin, meaning three "successive" days. The variant derives from at-Tabari (7.19.11 - cf. N�ldeke, 3.66; Jeffery, p.40) and was also mentioned by Abu Ubaid. This variant reading was, significantly, found in Ubayy ibn Ka'b's text as well (Jeffery, p.129) and in the texts of Ibn Abbas (p.199) and Ibn Mas'ud's pupil Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim (p.289).
3. Surah 6.153 begins Wa anna haathaa siraatii - "Verily this is my path". Ibn Mas'ud's text read Wa haathaa siraatu rabbakum - "This is the path of Your Lord". The variant derives again from at-Tabari (8.60.16 - cf. N�ldeke 3.66; Jeffery, p.42). Ubayy ibn Ka'b had the same reading, except that for rabbakum his text read rabbika (Jeffery, p.131). The secondary codex of Al-A'mash, mentioned by Ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitab al-Masahif (p.91), also began with the variant wa haathaa as in the texts of Ibn Mds'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b (Jeffery, p.318). Ibn Abi Dawud also adds a further variant, suggesting that Ibn Mas'ud read the word siraat with the Arabic letter sin rather than the standard sad (Kitab al-Masahif, p.61).
4. Surah 33.6 contains the following statement about the relationship between Muhammad's wives and the believers: wa azwaajuhuu ummahaatuhuu - "and his wives are their mothers". Ibn-Mas'ud's text added the words wa huwa abuu laahum - "and he is their father". The variant was also recorded by at-Tabari (21.70.8 - cf. N�ldeke 3.71; Jeffery p.75). This variant was likewise recorded in the codices of Ubayy ibn Ka'b (Jeffery, p.156) as well as those of Ibn Abbas (p.204), Ikrima (p.273) and Mujahid ibn Jabr (p.282), except that in these three cases the statement that Muhammad is the father of the believers precedes that which makes his wives their mothers. In the codex of Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim, however, where the variant also occurs, it is placed in the same position in the text as in the codices of Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy (p.298). The considerable number of references for this variant reading argue strongly for its possible authenticity over and against its omission in the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit.
These four examples are of texts where the variant consisted of the inclusion of extra words or clauses not found in Zaid's codex and, in each case, the variant is supported by inclusion in other codices, notably those included in Ubayy's text. The majority of variants, however, relate to consonantal variants in individual words or different forms of these words. In some cases whole words were omitted, such as in Surah 112.1 where Ibn Mas'ud omitted the word qul - "say" as did Ubayy ibn Ka'b (Fihrist S.26 Z.26 - cf. N�ldeke 3.77; Jeffery, pp. 113 and 180).
In other cases the variant related to the form of a word which also slightly altered its meaning, as in Surah 3.127 where Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy both read wa saabiquu ("be ahead") for wa saari'uu ("be quick") in the standard text (cf. N�ldeke, 3.64; Jeffery, pp. 34 and 125).
In yet other cases one single word might be added not affecting the sense of the text, as in Surah 6.16 where once again both Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy recorded the same variant, namely yusrifillaahu - "averted by Allah" - for the standard yusraf - "averted" (recorded from Maki's Kitab al-Kasf, cf. N�ldeke, 3.66; Jeffery, pp. 40 and 129).
These are but a small selection of the hundreds of variant readings between the texts of Ibn Mas'ud and Zaid giving a rough idea of the kind of differences that existed between their codices. They do serve, however, to show that these differences in their readings were not purely dialectal or confined to the pronunciation of the text as is conveniently suggested by writers like Siddique who are bound to the popular dogma "one text, no variants", but rather radically affected the contents of the text itself. The extent of the variant readings between all the codices in existence at the time of Uthman before he singled out that of Zaid to be the preferred text at the expense of the others is so great - they fill up no less than three hundred and fifty pages of Jeffery's Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an - that one can understand why the others were ordered to be destroyed.
Far from the Qur'an being universally accepted in a standard form there were, on the contrary, vast differences in the texts distributed in the various provinces. Uthman's action brought about the standardisation of a single text for the whole Muslim world - it was not a perpetuation of an already existing unity - and Zaid's codex, which from the evidences we have considered had no greater claim to authenticity than Ibn Mas'ud's, was simply arbitrarily chosen as the standard text because it was close at hand in Medina, had been compiled under official supervision, and had not become the accepted or rival text of any one province like some of the others before Uthman's decree. Before closing this chapter let us give some attention to the other great compiler of the Qur'an, Ubayy ibn Ka'b.
4. UBAYY IBN KA'B - MASTER OF THE QUR'AN RECITERS.
Among the authorities on the Qur'an other than Abdullah ibn Mas'ud the most well known was Ubayy ibn Ka'b. There are two very interesting hadith relating to his prominence as an expert on the Qur'an text, the first reading as follows:
Affan ibn Muslim informed us ... on the authority of Anas ibn Malik, he on the authority of the Prophet, may Allah bless him; he said: The best reader (of the Qur'an) among my people is Ubayyi ibn Ka'b. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.441).
In consequence he became known as Sayyidul-Qurra - "the Master of the Readers". Umar himself, the second Caliph of Islam, confirmed that he was in fact the best of all the Muslims in the recitation of the Qur'an (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.489). The second hadith in this respect reads as follows:
Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to Ubayy b. Ka'b: I have been commanded to recite to you the Sura (al-Bayyinah), which opens with these words Lam yakunal-lathinna kafaruu. He said: Has he mentioned to you my name? He said: Yes, thereupon he shed tears of joy. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1313).
We are not informed as to why Muhammad considered himself especially obliged to commit parts of the Qur'an to Ubayy but these two traditions do serve to show how highly regarded he was as an authority on the Qur'an. Nonetheless his codex also contained a vast number of readings which varied from Zaid's text and, as we have already seen, these readings often agreed with Ibn Mas'ud's text instead. The addition of the word mutataabi'aatin in Surah 5.91, which we have already seen was recorded by at-Tabari as part of the codex of Ibn Mas'ud, was independently attributed to Ubayy as well (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.53). His order of Surahs, in some ways similar to Zaid's, was nonetheless different at many points (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.150).
Some examples of instances where he agreed with Ibn Mas'ud and differed in turn from Zaid (there were in fact a very large number which could be mentioned) are the following:
1. For the standard reading wa yush-hidullaaha in Surah 2.204 he read wa yastash-hidullaaha (cf. N�ldeke 3.83; Jeffery, p.120).
2. He omitted the words in khiftum from Surah 4.101 (cf. N�ldeke 3.85; Jeffery, p.127).
3. He read mutathab-thibiina for muthabthabiina in Surah 4.143 (cf. Jeffery, p.127).
There are a number of cases where whole clauses differed in his text. In Surah 5.48, where the standard text reads wa katabnaa 'alayhim fiiha - "and We inscribed therein for them (the Jews)" - the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka'b was wa anzalallaahu alaa banii Isra'iila fiiha - "and Allah sent down therein to the Children of Israel" (cf. N�ldeke 3.85; Jeffery, p.128).
From Abu Ubaid we find that, whereas Surah 17.16 in the standard text reads amarnaa mutrafiihaa fafasaquu, Ubayy read this clause ba'athnaa akaabira mujri-miihaa fdmakaruu (cf. N�ldeke 3.88; Jeffery, p.140).
One can go on and on to show how vastly Ubayy's text, like Ibn Mas'ud's and all the others, is said to have differed from Zaid's text which ultimately became standardised as the official reading of the Qur'an, but these examples serve once again to show that the variant readings were in the contents of the text itself and not just in niceties of pronunciation and recitation as many modern Muslim writers choose to assume.
There is a very interesting record of a whole verse which was found in Ubayy's text and which is not found today in Zaid's text which we shall consider in the next chapter. We cannot close on Ubayy, however, without giving some consideration to two extra surahs which we are told belonged to his codex. We are informed that, whereas Ibn Mas'ud omitted the two "charm" surahs from his codex, Ubayy included two extra surahs, al-Hafd (the Haste) and al-Khal' (the Separation) (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.152-153). The narrative continues by stating that Abu Ubaid said:
"Written in the text of Ubayy ibn Ka'b were the Fatihal-kitab (the Opening Surah) and the Mu'awwi-thatayni (the Charm Surahs) and Allahumma innaa nasta'iinka (the opening words of Suratul-Khal' meaning 'O Allah, we seek your help') and Allahumma ayyaaka na'budu (the opening words of Suratul-Hafd meaning 'O Allah, we worship you')". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.153).
Suyuti goes on to give the full text of these two surahs, stating that they were also found in the codex of Ibn Abbas following the reading of both Ubayy and Abu Musa who also recorded them (Al-Itqan, p.154). Both surahs are similar to the Suratul-Fatihah, containing prayers to God for forgiveness and declarations of faith, praise, service and trust in his mercy. We are told that these are the supplications which Muhammad occasionally offered at his morning prayers after recitation of other surahs, being described as "the preserved suratal-quunut (chapters of humble obedience toward God) in the surahs respectively titled al-Khal' and al-Hafd" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.527).
It is intriguing to consider that, in their likeness to the Suratul-Fatihah (which extends to their length also - the Fatihah has seven verses while the other two have been set out in three and six verses respectively - cf. N�ldeke, Geschichte 2.35), they were regarded as of equal authority from different stand-points by Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy respectively. The former had none of them in his codex, the latter all three! It seems that Muhammad himself used them interchangeably and that some of his companions were uncertain whether they should be recorded as part of the written kitabullah, especially as each one constitutes a prayer of supplication in the words of the believers and worshippers in contrast to the rest of the Qur'an where Allah is always made to be the speaker.
We have, in this chapter, given some consideration to the codices of the two most prominent authorities on the Qur'an to show how considerably they differed from the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit and how uncertain much of the Qur'an text was when it was first compiled after the death of Muhammad. We could also go on to consider the numerous other codices that are recorded as having been transcribed before Uthman's decree that they should be burnt, but let it suffice to say that in each of these as well there were large numbers of variant readings which have been preserved. (Uthman was able to blot out the written codices in which they were recorded, he was unable to erase them from the memories of those who had recorded them).
In fact one should not speak so much of the readings in Zaid's text as the "standard" readings and of the others as "variant" readings as though the latter were the exception. The truth is that, between all the codices that existed in the early days of Islam ibn Mas'ud's, Zaid's, Ubayy's, Abu Musa's, etc. there were a wealth of differences and Zaid's readings qualify just as readily as the others do. In his case his qira'at became standardised as the only readings allowable in the Muslim world and copies of his codex were distributed to replace the others in popular use purely to establish a uniform reading of the Qur'an text.
The Qur'an as it has come down through the centuries is not the single text without any variants that has been divinely preserved without so much as a dispute regarding even one letter as Muslim writers conveniently choose to believe. Rather it is simply but one form of it as it existed during the first two decades after Muhammad's death, the compilation of but one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, and commissioned for the Muslim world as the only text to be accepted, not by divine decree, but by the arbitrary discretion of yet another single individual, Uthman ibn Affan.
The popular sentiment of the Muslims that the Qur'an has, right from the beginning, been preserved without the slightest variation in a single text would carry weight if it could be shown that this was the only text accepted by the whole Muslim community from the time of Muhammad himself.
The records of the Qur'an's compilation in the heritage of Islam, however, show convincingly that there were a whole number of different codices in vogue during the first generation after Muhammad's demise and that these all varied considerably from one another. The adoption of a single text came only twenty years after his death and only through the unilateral choice of one of the varying codices as the standard text at the expense of the others. The universally accepted text of the Qur'an in the Muslim world is not so much the mushaf of Muhammad but rather the mushaf of Zaid ibn Thabit, and its unchallenged authority today has come about, not through divine decree or preservation, but by the imposition of one man acting on his own initiative against the many other codices of equal authority which he summarily consigned to the flames.
THE COLLECTION OF THE QUR'AN - from the hadiths
[Zaid b. Thabit said:] 'The Prophet died and the Qur'an had not been assembled into a single place.' (p. 118, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 9)
when people came to Medina to learn about Islam, they were provided with copies of the chapters of the Qur'an, to read and learn them by heart. (Hamidullah, "Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbih", 1070, p. 64)
Salim had already 'collected the Qur'an into a single volume' -- he was the first to collect the Qur'an, and gave it the name mushaf, a word he had heard in Ethiopia, (p. 121, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 58)
The Muslim sources are thus quite clear that Abu Bakr and `Umar were responsible for the first collection of the Qur'an texts following the death of the Muhammad. Discordant voices were nonetheless heard, Abu Bakr died and the Qur'an had not been collected; `Umar was killed and the Qur'an had not been collected.' (p. 229)
Zaid reports, 'Abu Bakr sent for me on the occasion of the deaths of those killed in the Yemama wars. I found `Umar b. al Khattab with him. Abu Bakr said, "`Umar has just come to me and said, 'In the Yemama fighting death has dealt most severely with the qurra' and I fear it will deal with equal severity with them in other theatres of war and as a result much of the Qur'an will perish [d h b]. I am therefore of the opinion that you should command that the Qur'an be collected.'" Abu Bakr added, "I said to `Umar, 'How can we do what the Prophet never did?' `Umar replied that it was nonetheless a good act. He did not cease replying to my scruples until God reconciled me to the undertaking." Abu Bakr continued, "Zaid, you are young and intelligent and we know nothing to your discredit. You used to record the revelations for the Prophet, so pursue the Qur'an and collect it all together." By God! had they asked me to remove a mountain it could not have been more weighty than what they would now have me do in ordering me to collect the Qur'an. I therefore asked them how they could do what the Prophet had not done but Abu Bakr insisted that it was permissible. He did not cease replying to my scruples until God reconciled me to the undertaking as He had already reconciled Abu Bakr and `Umar. I thereupon pursued the Qur'an collecting it all together from palm-branches, flat stones and the memories of men. I found the last verse of sura al Tawba in the possession of Abu Khuzaima al Ansari, having found it with no one else, "There has now come to you..." to the end of the sura. The sheets [suhuf] that Zaid prepared in this manner remained in the keeping of Abu Bakr. On his death, they passed to `Umar who then bequeathed them on his death to his daughter Hafsa. (p. 118-119, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 9. Also Sahih Bukhari vol. VI:509, 510)
Zuhri reports that when slaughter befell the Muslims in the Yemama it was Abu Bakr who feared that many of the qarra' would perish. (p. 120, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 12)
It is said that upward of 700 Companions fell in the Yemama. Sufyan reports that when Salim was slain `Umar hastened to Abu Bakr. (p. 120, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 9)
The first to collect the Qur'an between two covers was Abu Bakr. awwal man jama`a al Qur'an baina lawhain. (p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 6)
`Ali said, 'God bless Abu Bakr! He was the first to collect the Qur'an between two covers', (p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 6)
and again, 'the greatest reward in respect of the masahif will fall to Abu Bakr for he was the first to collect the text between the two covers.' (p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 5)
Hisham b. 'Urwa reports his father as saying, 'Abu Bakr collected the Qur'an after the death of the Prophet.' (p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 6)
Elsewhere we are assured that Zaid first wrote out the Qur'an for Abu Bakr on scraps of leather and on palm-branches. On the death of Abu Bakr, `Umar appointed Zaid to transcribe his materials into the sahifa which remained in `Umar's possession. (p. 123, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 12)
Zaid says that they had been accustomed to organising the Qur'an from these scraps in the presence of the Prophet. (p. 123, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 57)
Abu Bakr ordered `Umar and Zaid to sit in the gate of the mosque and to include in the mushaf only what was vouched for by the testimony of two men. (p. 125, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 11)
On the discovery of two closing verses of Q 9, `Umar is said to have remarked, 'Had they been three verses, I would have made them a separate sura', (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 61)
a report which disturbed some scholars. (p. 215)
`Umar b. al Khattab enquired about a verse of the Book of God. On being informed that it had been in the possession of so-and-so who had been killed in the Yemama wars, `Umar exclaimed the formula expressing loss, 'We are God's and unto Him is our return.' `Umar gave the command and the Qur'an was collected. He was the first to collect the Qur'an. (p. 120, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
`Umar was the first to collect the Qur'an into a single volume [mushaf]... `Umar desired to collect the Qur'an. He address the people, 'Whoever among you received any part of the Qur'an directly from the very mouth of the Prophet let him bring it here to us.' (p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
Omitting the words, 'between two covers' or 'into a single volume', and supposing the transmission to be accurate, the meaning of jama`a al Qur'an would be 'memorised the Qur'an.' (p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
Similarly, where used of ``Umar, the root j m ` signifies asara bi jam`ihi, 'advised its collection.' (p. 122-3, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 10; Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
`Umar decided to collect the Qur'an. He addressed the people, 'Let whoever received direct from the mouth of the Prophet any part of the Qur'an now bring it here to us.' They had written what they had heard on sheets, tablets and palm-branches. `Umar would not accept anything from anyone until two witnesses bore testimony. He was assassinated while still engaged on his collection. His successor, `Uthman addressed the people, 'Let whoever has anything of the Book of God bring it here to us.' `Uthman would accept nothing from anyone until two witnesses bore testimony. Khuzaima b. Thabit said, 'I see that you have omitted two verses. You have not written them.' They asked what they were and he said, 'I had direct from the Prophet: "There has come to you....". `Uthman said, 'And I bear witness that these verses come from God.' He asked Khuzaima where they should enter them. He replied, 'Make them the close of the latest Qur'anic revelation.' Thus was Bara'a sealed with these words. (p. 123, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
When `Umar determined to write out the imam, he ordered a group of the Companions to set to work and advised them that, if they disagreed linguistically, they should write it in the language of Mudar, since it had been revealed to a man of Mudar. (p. 153, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11)
The collection of the Qur'an ab initio (jam` al Qur'an fi sahifa, fi suhuf, fi mushaf, baina lawhain) is a distinctive activity and has, we have seen, been ascribed to numerous individuals among the Companion generation, including each of Muhammad's four immediate successors as Head of State, Abu Bakr, `Umar `Uthman, and `Ali. The provision of a textus receptus (jam` al masahif `ala mushaf wahid, jam` al nas `ala mushaf) in which the root j m ` abandons the meaning 'to collect' to take on the force of 'collating', 'reconciling', is a different activity and has been attributed to only one of Muhammad's successors, `Uthman b. `Affan (A.D. 644-56). (p. 139)
The alternative jam` al masahif view requires our assent to the contrary proposition. Not only had the Qur'an texts been organised, preserved and collected at a much earlier date, but this had been done on innumerable occasions and by innumerable persons. On the accession of the Prophet's third successor there existed such an unwieldy body of materials that it was not only possible but essential to establish a textus receptus ne varietur while many of those best qualified to bring this vital undertaking to a successful conclusion were still happily alive. (p. 140)
See section 3 and 4
[On the death of Muhammad, Ali] 'vowed that he would not don outdoor clothes until he had collected the Qur'an into a single volume.' (p. 121, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
In one version of the report on `Ali's vow, we read, 'until I collected the Qur'an between two covers'. The commentators assure us that this version is erroneous. Only a single transmitter credits `Ali with a collection ab initio. The report is isolate. (p. 122, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 9)
[Note: Khuzaima was credited with the bringing of Q9:128-129 when it was compiled. Either one Khuzaima offered the verses on more than one different occasion or three different Khuzaima's did that.]
They collected the Qur'an into a mushaf in the reign of Abu Bakr, some men writing to the dictation of Ubayy. When they reached Q 9.127 some supposed that that was the last part of the Qur'an to have been revealed. But Ubayy pointed out that the Prophet had taught him two verses more and, since they were the last of the Qur'an to be revealed, the Book should close on the note on which it had begun. (p. 124, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
[Zaid reports:] I found the last verse of sura al Tawba in the possession of Abu Khuzaima al Ansari, having found it with no one else, "There has now come to you..." to the end of the sura. (p. 119, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 9)
Khuzaima b. Thabit said, 'I see that you have omitted two verses. You have not written them.' They asked what they were and he said, 'I had direct from the Prophet: "There has come to you....". `Uthman said, 'And I bear witness that these verses come from God.' He asked Khuzaima where they should enter them. He replied, 'Make them the close of the latest Qur'anic revelation.' Thus was Bara'a sealed with these words. (p. 123, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
A further hadith features one al Harith b. Khuzaima who brought this very verse to `Umar. (p. 125, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 30)
Unhappily, however, the elegance of this rationalisation is marred by uncertainty as to the man's identity.
'Khuzaima was known as du al sahadatain. The Prophet had declared his testimony equal to that of two men. (Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 29)
(p. 128)
'The Prophet had declared his evidence to equal that of two men.' (p. 126, Badr al Din Muhammad b. `Abdullah al Zarkasi, "K. al Burhan fi `ulum al Qur'an, 4 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1957/1376, vol. 1, p. 234)
Zaid's words, 'I did not find with anyone else', were interpreted to mean that he had not found the verse in writing with anyone else. (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 12)
That task, whoever first accomplished it, was merely one of assembling the Qur'an which 'already in the lifetime of the Prophet was recorded in writing. Abu Bakr's contribution was to arrange for the transfer of these sheets, then scattered about Medina, into a single volume.' God informs us that in Muhammad's day the Qur'an was written on 'pure sheets from which he recites.' (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 10) Q 98.2 may or may not refer to Muhammad. In either event, the remark is exegetical rather than historical. (p. 121)
'They collected the Qur'an from the codex prepared by Ubayy.' (Masahif, p. 30)
They collected the Qur'an into a mushaf in the reign of Abu Bakr, some men writing to the dictation of Ubayy. When they reached Q 9.127 some supposed that that was the last part of the Qur'an to have been revealed. But Ubayy pointed out that the Prophet had taught him two verses more and, since they were the last of the Qur'an to be revealed, the Book should close on the note on which it had begun. (p. 124, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
Other attributions [ie. compiled Qur'an] include the Prophet's widows: `A'isha, Hafsa and Umm Salama. Among the Companions were named Miqdad (or Mu`ad), Abu Musa, `Abdullah, `Ubada and Zaid b. Thabit. (p. 165, A. Jeffery, "Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an, Leiden, 1937, p. 17. CF. Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. `Abdul Rahman al Darimi, "K. al Sunan", Cairo, 1966/1386, p. 55)
We are told by Muslim traditionists that other people also memorized and collected large portions of the Qur'an. Among the Ansaris were Ubayy ibn Ka`b, Mu`adh ibn Jabal Abu Zaid, Abu Zaid and Abu-ad-Darda (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 6, pp. 488-489)
`Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, who had been with Muhammad from the very beginning in Mecca, had collected more than ninety of the one hundred fourteen surahs, learning the rest from Mujammi ibn Jariyah (Ibn Sa`d, "Kitab al Tabaqat", vol. 2, p. 457)
Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik: 'Who collected the Quran at the time of the prophet?' He replied, 'Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka`b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.'" (Sahih Bukhari, vol. vi, no. 525)
They collected the Qur'an into a mushaf in the reign of Abu Bakr, some men writing to the dictation of Ubayy. (p. 124, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
`Umar is said to have admonished `Abdullah for teaching the Qur'an in the language of Hudail. It had been revealed in the language of the Qurais and ought to be taught in that language. (p. 154, 200-201, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 7)
But, as the Qur'an text features usages thought to be other than those of the Qurais dialect, al Baqillani was constrained to add that `Uthman's [my note: or was it `Umar?] advice to the commissioners is to be interpreted in the sense that the bulk, not necessarily the whole, had been revealed in the dialect of Qurais. (p. 154, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 7)
`Umar, on the other hand, who is credited in the Hadith with the prohibition of the very usage not merely adumbrated but specifically documented in the supposed Ubayy's text, figures in the hadiths attempting to convince Ubayy from the Qur'an itself (Q 2.106) of the reality of all the naskh phenomena. (p. 179, Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i, al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in "Umm", 7 vols., Bulaq 1324, vol 7, p. 219)
`Umar is reported to have insisted,
'let none dictate the texts of our mushaf save men of Qurais and Thaqif.' (p. 200, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 15)
`Uthman's collection occurred when differences had become frequent. They were reciting in all the rich multiplicity of their Arab dialects. He copied out the sheets into a single mushaf, arranged the suras and restricted the texts to a single dialect -- that of the Qurais on the plea that it had been revealed in the tongue of Mecca. (p. 156, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60; cf. Fath, vol. 9, p. 18)
'Hudaifa b. al Yeman came to `Uthman direct from the Aderbaijan and Armenian frontier where, uniting the forces from Iraq and those from Syria, he had had an opportunity to observe regional differences over the Qur'an. "Commander of the faithful," he advised, "take this umma in hand before they differ about the Book like Christians and Jews." `Uthman sent asking Hafsa to lend him the sheets [inherited by her father, `Umar, from Abu Bakr, and now in her possession] "so that we can copy them into other volumes and then return them." She sent her suhuf to `Uthman who summon Zaid, Sa`id b. al `As, `Abdul Rahman b. al Harith b. Hisham and `Abdullah b. al Zubair and commanded them to copy the sheets into several volumes. Addressing the group from Qurais, he added, "Wherever you differ from Zaid, write the word in the dialect of Qurais for it was revealed in that tongue." When they had copied the sheets, `Uthman sent a copy to each of the main centres of the empire with the command that all other Qur'an materials, whether in single sheet form, or in whole volumes, were to be burned.'
Zhuri adds, 'Kharija b. Zaid informed me that Zaid said, "I noticed that a verse of sura al Ahzab, which I had used to hear the Prophet recite, was missing, I found it in the keeping of Khuzaima b. Thabit and entered it in the appropriate place."' (pp. 141-142, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 18)
Hudaifa said, 'The Kufans say, "the text of `Abdullah"; the Basrans say, "the text of Abu Musa". By God! if I reach the Commander of the faithful, I will recommend that he drown these readings." (var. Masahif) `Abdullah said, 'Do and God will drown you, but not in water!' (pp. 146-147, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 13)
`Abdullah, Hudaifa and Abu Musa were on the roof of Abu Musa's house. `Abdullah said, 'I hear you say such-and-such.' Hudaifa said, 'Yes, I deplore folk talking about this one's reading and that one's reading. They are differing like non-Muslims.' Hudaifa continued, '`Abdullah b. Qais, you were sent to the Basrans as governor and teacher. They have adopted your adab, your dialect and your text.' To b. Mas`ud he said, 'You were sent to the Kufans as their teacher and they have adopted your adab, your dialect and your reading.'
'In that case,' retorted b. Mas`ud, 'I have not misled them. There is no verse in the Book of God but that I know where and in what connection it was revealed. Did I know of anyone more learned than myself on the subject I should go to him.' (p. 147, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 14)
Hudaifa figures in a second hadith series which reports textual differences, not only between Iraq and Syria, but also between rival groups of Iraqis.
We were sitting in the mosque and `Abdullah was reciting the Qur'an when Hudaifa came in and said, 'The reading of ibn Umm `Abd! [ie. `Abdullah] The reading of Abu Musa! By God! if I am spared to reach the Commander of the Faithful, I will recommend that he impose a single Qur'an reading!' `Abdullah became very angry and spoke sharply to Hudaifa who fell silent. (p. 142, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 13)
'Yazid b. Ma`awiya was in the mosque in the time of al Walid b. `Uqba, sitting in a group among them was Hudaifa. An official called out, 'Those who follow the reading of Abu Musa, go to the corner nearest the Kinda door. Those who follow `Abdullah's reading, go the corner nearest `Abdullah's house.' Their reading of Q 2.196 did not agree. One group read, 'Perform the pilgrimage to God.' The others read it 'Perform the pilgrimage to the Ka`ba.' Hudaifa became very angry, his eyes reddened and he rose, parting his qamis at the waits, although in the mosque. This was during the reign of `Uthman. Hudaifa exclaimed, 'Will someone go the Command of the Faithful, or shall I go myself? This is what happened in the previous dispensations.' He came over and sat down, saying, 'God sent Muhammad who, with those who went forward, fought those who went back until God gave victory to His religion. God took Muhammad and Islam made strides. To succeed him, God chose Abu Bakr who reigned as long as God chose. God then took him and Islam made rapid strides. God appointed `Umar who sat in the midst of Islam. God then took him also. Islam spread rapidly. God next chose `Uthman. God's oath! Islam is on the point of such expansion that soon you will replace all other religions.' (p. 143, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11)
During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical. News of this came to `Uthman's ears and he addressed the people, 'You who are here around me are disputing as to the Qur'an, and pronouncing it differently. It follows that those who are distant in the various regional centers of Islam are even more widely divided. Companions of Muhammad! act in unison; come together and write out an imam for the Muslims.' (p. 143, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 21)
Mus`ab b. Sa`d reports, '`Uthman addressed the people, "It is now thirteen years since your Prophet left you and you are not unanimous on the Qur'an. You talk about the reading of Ubayy and the reading of `Abdullah. Some even say, 'By God! my reading is right and yours is wrong.' I now summon you all to bring here whatever part of the Book of God you possess." One would come with a parchment or a scrap of leather with a Qur'an verse in it [fihi al Qur'an] until there was gathered great store of such. `Uthman adjured them to come, "You heard the prophet recite this?" They would answer that that was so. After this `Uthman asked, "Whose acquaintance with the Book is the greatest?" They replied "His who wrote it out for the Prophet." He asked, "Whose Arabic is best?" They said, "Sa`id's." `Uthman said, "Let Sa`id dictate and Zaid write."..... Mus`ab adds, 'I heard some Companions of the Prophet say, "`Uthman did well to undertake it."' (pp. 145-146, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23-4)
A second version places the event fifteen years after the Prophet's death and mentions the bringing of tablets, shoulder-blades and stripped palm-fronds all bearing writing [fihi al kitab] or parts of the Book. There is no allusion to any earlier collection and, as the celebrated suhuf of Hafsa are quite unmentioned, no backward link is intended between `Uthman's and `Umar's or Abu Bakr's collection. `Uthman's is envisaged as the earliest collection since the revelation of the Qur'an to the Prophet. (p. 146)
`Abdullah b. Mas`ud had reportedly permitted a non-Arab to substitute another word for one he was incapable of pronouncing correctly, owing to the strange Arab phoneme. `Abdullah explained that error would consist solely in reading a mercy verse as a punishment verse, or vice-versa, or in adding to the Book of God something that did not belong there. (p. 151, Ya`qub b. Ibrahim al Kufi, Abu Yusuf, "K. al athar", Haiderabad, 1355, p. 44; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 47)
ibn al Jazari exclaims, 'Whoever alleges that any of the Companions thought it legitimate to transmit the Qur'an according to the sense alone is a liar.' (pp. 188-189, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 77)
A man recited in the presence of `Umar who corrected him. The man, incensed, claimed to have recited for the Prophet and he had not corrected him. They carried their dispute to Muhammad. When the Prophet endorsed the man's claim that Muhammad had personally instructed him, doubts sprang in `Umar's mind. Reading `Umar's expression, the Prophet struck him on the chest, exclaiming, 'Out devil!' Muhammad then explained, 'All the modes of reciting are correct so long as you don't turn a statement on mercy into one on wrath and vice-versa.' (p. 148, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 3, p. 507)
Ubayy entered the mosque and, hearing a man recite, asked him who had instructed him. The man replied that he had been taught by the Prophet. Ubayy went in search of the Prophet. When the man recited, Muhammad said, 'That is correct.' Ubayy protested, 'But you taught me to recite so-and-so.' The Prophet said that Ubayy was right too. 'Right? Right?' burst out Ubayy in perplexity. The Prophet struck him on the chest and prayed, 'Oh God! cause doubt to depart.' Ubayy broke into a sweat as his heart filled with terror. Muhammad disclosed that two angels had come to him. One said, 'Recite the Qur'an in one form.' The other advised Muhammad to ask for more than this. That was repeated several times until finally the first angel said, 'Very well. Recite it in seven forms.' The Prophet said, 'Each of the forms is grace-giving, protecting, so long as you don't terminate a punishment verse with an expression of mercy, or vice-versa -- as you might for example say, Let's go; or let's be off.' (p. 148-149, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", p. 32)
Zaid b. Arqam reports that a man went to the Prophet and said, '`Abdullah b. Mas`ud taught me to recite a particular sura; Zaid b. Thabit taught me the same sura, and so did Ubayy. The readings of all three are different. Whose reading ought I adopt?' The Prophet remained silent. `Ali, who was by his side, said, 'Every man ought to recite it as he was taught. Each of the modes is acceptable and equally valid.' (p. 150, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 24)
A man complained to the Prophet, '`Abdullah taught me to recite a sura of the Qur'an. Zaid taught me the same sura and so too did Ubayy. The readings of all three differ. Whose reading ought I to adopt?' The Prophet remained silent. `Ali who was at his side replied, 'Every man should recite as he was taught. Each of the readings is acceptable, valid.' (p. 193, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 24)
Abu Huraira reports the Prophet as saying, 'The Qur'an was revealed in seven forms and contention about the Qur'an is disbelief.' (p. 151, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 22)
'All the readings are correct and equally valid, as long as you do not terminate a mercy verse with a reference to punishment or vice versa.' (p. 207-208, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 46-7)
Zhuri [reports] 'I have heard that these are seven forms, and that they express but one meaning with no disagreement as to what is permitted and what forbidden'. (p. 208, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 29)
Among some forty varying interpretations of the hadith canvassed, one view was that the reference is to the seven Qur'an codices compiled by Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, `Ali, `Abdullah, Ubayy and ibn `Abbas. (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 49)
Many attempted to relate the different forms to the linguistic situation. It was therefore alleged that the Qur'an had been revealed in each of the seven dialects of Mudar, the great branch of the Arab nation from which the Prophet sprang. (p. 152, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 47; Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11)
These dialects were listed as: Hudail, Kinana, Qais, Dabba, Taim al Rabbab, Asad b. Khuzaima and Qurais.
ibn `Abbas is credited with the distribution: five Hawasin-type dialects, Qurais and Khuza`a. (p. 152, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 66)
ibn `Abbas stated, 'The Qur'an was revealed in seven dialects' (p. 156, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 47)
`Umar said, 'I heard Hisham b. Hukaim reciting surat al Furqan and listened to his recital. On observing that he was reading many forms which the Prophet had not taught me, I all but rushed upon him as he prayed. But I waited patiently as he continued, and, collaring him when he had finished, I asked him, 'Who taught you to recite this sura?' He claimed that the Prophet had taught him. I said, 'By God! you're lying!' I dragged him to the Prophet telling him that I heard Hisham recite many forms he had not taught me. The Prophet said, 'Let him go. Recite, Hisham.' He recited the reading I had already heard from him. The Prophet said, 'That is how it was revealed.' He then said, 'Recite, `Umar', and I recited what he had taught me. He said, 'That's right. That is how it was revealed. This Qur'an was revealed in seven forms, so recite what it was easiest.' (p. 150-151, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 24)
Not only were `Umar and Hisam fellow tribesmen. Both were fellow tribesmen of the Prophet. (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 22)
Since the Qur'an had been revealed in seven forms, had Gabriel checked all seven, or only one, and, if so, which one? (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 21)
Ahmad, ibn abi Da'ud and Tabari are all credited with the view that the `Uthman text was based on the reading reviewed by Gabriel in his final meeting with Muhammad. In an ibn Sirin version of the hadith, it is reported that 'the Muslims are of the view that our present text is the latest of all the texts, having been reviewed on the occasion of the final check.' (p. 194, Cf. Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)
Zaid is also said to have attended the final review and to have learned what was withdrawn and what remained. (p. 194, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)
al Bagawi in Sarh al Sunna, concluded,
'The mushaf which has been traditionally accepted represents the final review text. `Uthman ordered it to be copied into the mushafs he despatched throughout the empire, simultaneously making away with all other Qur'an materials with the aim of preventing differences. Whatever is at variance with the written text is now to be regarded in the same light as that which has been abrogated and withdrawn. It is no longer competent for any man to go beyond the text.' (p. 195, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 25)
Tabari taught that the Companions agreed to write out that which they were certain represented the text as checked on the occasion of the final review. They were unanimous that all other Qur'an materials must be abandoned. (p. 195, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)
'Salim died at Yemama; Mu`ad in `Umar's reign; both Ubayy and `Abdullah in `Uthman's reign. Zaid died much later than them all and thus attained to leadership in respect of the Qur'an readings. (p. 196, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 70)
Mujahid reports ibn `Abbas as asking, 'Which of the two texts do you consider the later?' They replied that the Zaid text was the later, which ibn `Abbas repudiated. 'The Prophet,' he argued, 'reviewed the Qur'an annually with Gabriel and twice in the year he died. The reading of `Abdullah represents the later of the two final reviews.' (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 35-6)
By Zaid's text is the meant the `Uthman mushaf. (p. 194)
Ibrahim reports that ibn `Abbas heard some man refer to 'the former Qur'an text'. He asked him what he meant. The man explained, '`Umar sent `Abdullah to Kufa as instructor and the people there adopted his reading. `Uthman altered the text, so they refer to `Abdullah's reading as "the former text".' ibn `Abbas rejected this. '`Abdullah's is the later, based on the final review.' ibn `Abbas also reports that `Abdullah attended the final review and learned what had been withdrawn and what had been abrogated. (p. 194, Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Ahmad al Ansari al Qurtubi, "al Jami` li ahkam al Qur'an", 30 vols., Cairo, 1952/1372, vol. 1, p. 57)
ibn Zibyan reports that ibn `Abbas asked him which of the two texts he recited. He replied the former reading, that of ibn Umm `Abd (ie. `Abdullah's). 'But,' said ibn Abbas, 'it is the later of the two.' (p. 195, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 36)
Ibn Mas'ud was present when Muhammad allegedly reviewed the Qur'an with Gabriel each year (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.441)
Tayalisi draws our attention to an interesting rule-of-thumb: 'He shall be imam [at prayer] whose knowledge of the Book of God is most extensive and whose acquaintance with it is most ancient. If two man be alike in this respect, he shall be imam whose adherence to Islam was the earlier.' (p. 191, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, no. 618)
Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal, and Ubai bin Ka'b. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, pp. 96-97)
Masruq reported: They made mention of Ibn Mas'ud before Abdullah b. Amr whereupon he said: He is a person whose love is always fresh in my heart after I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four persons: from Ibn Mas'ud, Salim, the ally of Abu Hudhaifa, Ubayy b. Ka'b, and Mu'adh b. Jabal. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1313)
In the well-known collection of traditions by Ibn Sa`d, we read these words: Ibn Abbas asked, `Which of the two readings of the Qur'an do you prefer?' [The prophet] answered, `The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud.' Verily the Qur'an was recited be fore the apostle of Allah, once in every Rammadan, except the last year when it was recited twice. Then Abdullah ibn Mas'ud came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated. (Ibn Sa`d, vol. 2, pg.441)
`Alqama al Nakha`i reports `Abdullah's departure from Kufa. `We used,' continues Abdullah, 'to refer our disputes to the Prophet and he would order us to recite in his presence and inform us that each was in the right. Did I know of any man more learned than myself in respect of what God has revealed, I would seek him out and add his store of knowledge to mine. I learned the recitation of seventy suras of the Qur'an from the very mouth of the Prophet and I was aware that the Qur'an was reviewed annually, every Ramadhan, and twice in the year he died. When he had completed the review, I would recite to him and he would inform me that I was right. 'Let therefore whoever recites after my reading not abandon it nor lose taste for it. Whoever recites according to any of these other forms, let him not abandon his reading either. But whoever denies a single verse of the Qur'an denies the entire Book. (pp. 208-209, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 28)
'Whoever wishes to recite the Qur'an in the purest form, that in which it was revealed, let him recite the reading of ibn Umm `Abd [`Abdullah].' (p. 193, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 44)
'Whatsoever `Abdullah teaches you to recite, follow it.' (p. 193, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 59)
`Abdullah is himself reported as declaring, 'Did I know of anyone whom camels could reach who had later information on the final review than I have, I should go to him.' (p. 195)
Narrated `Abdullah (bin Mas`ud): By Allah other than whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah's book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 6, p. 488)
'The Prophet taught me [ie. ibn Mas`ud] to recite seventy suras which I had mastered before Zaid had even become a Muslims.' (p. 166, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 17)
[ibn Mus`ud :] 'I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy suras while Zaid still had his ringlets and was playing with his companions.' (p. 166, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 14)
`Abdullah is supposed to have enjoined his followers, 'Lay up your Qur'an's! How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy suras?" 'Am I,' asks Abdullah, 'to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?' (pp. 166-167, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 15)
[Shaqiq:] I sat in the company of the companions of Muhammad but I did not hear anyone having that (that is his recitation) [of `Abdullah] or finding fault with it. (Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, p. 1312)
Zaid b. Thabit attended the final review and in the course of it what had been removed from the Qur'an and what remained was explained to the Prophet. Zaid wrote out his final review text for the Prophet and read it over to him to check it once again. Zaid therefore taught this text to the Muslims. That is why Abu Bakr and `Umar relied upon Zaid in the assembly of the Qur'an texts and why `Uthman appointed him to produce the copies. (p. 213, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)
`Uthman asked whose was the purest speech and whose the greatest acquaintance with the Qur'an. (Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 22)
A variant might mean whose is the greatest acquaintance with the Book, alternatively, with the art of writing. (Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23-4) On their reply, he commanded, 'Let Said dictate and let Zaid write.'
(p. 125)
In one version of Muhammad's encounter with the revealing angel, the Prophet pleaded that he had been sent to a nation of illiterates and was granted the concession of multiple readings. (p. 152, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 35)
The concession, in Tahawi's view, allowed for their inability to keep to the exact wording of a single reading, unaccustomed as they were to reading, writing and accuracy in verbatim memorising. The concession was later withdrawn when, with their growing acquaintance with writing and accuracy in reproduction, the necessity originally justifying it was removed. (pp. 152-153, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 47)
`Uthman organised the suras in the order we are now familiar with. In addition, he restricted the reading to a single dialect -- that of Qurais in which it had been revealed. Hitherto, there had been a concession permitting the reciting of the Qur'an in dialects other than that of Mecca so that the burden of scruple imposed upon converts at the outset of the new revelation should be minimal. Those days were now recognised by `Uthman to be gone, not least since much danger was to be feared from the continuation of that freedom and especially since some overliteralness in the local attachment to a particular reading might give the impression of, or even lead to, the fragmentation of the Islamic unity. (pp. 155-156, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)
`Uthman's purpose and achievement was to unite the Muslims on the basis of a single agreed Qur'an reading. (p. 143, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 15)
Abu Bakr's aim had been to collect the Qur'an between two covers. `Uthman's was to collect those readings attested as coming from the Prophet and to reject all non-canonical readings. He aimed to unite the Muslims on the basis of a single text, containing no interpolations and no Qur'an provisions whose wording had been withdrawn but which still appeared in the written text with verses whose inclusion in the final version of the text had been endorsed and thus preserved as required to be publicly recited [at prayer]. (p. 161, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)
By God! he did not act on the mushaf except in the fullest consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your view in this matter of reading? I have heard that some even say, "My reading is superior to yours." That is tantamount to heresy.' We asked him, 'What are you thinking to do?' He replied, 'My view is that we should unite the Muslims on the basis of a single mushaf. That way, there will be no disagreement, no segmentation.' We replied, 'An excellent idea!' Someone then asked, 'Whose is the purest Arabic? and whose the greatest acquaintance with the recitation [alt. Qur'an]?' They said that the purest Arabic was that of Sa`id b. al `As and that the one most acquainted with the recitation [Qur'an] was Zaid b. Thabit. `Uthman said, 'Let the one write and the other dictate.' The two then set to work and in this way `Uthman united the Muslims on the basis of a single text.
`Ali concludes his report with the declaration, 'Had I been in power, I should have done just what `Uthman did.' (p. 144, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 22)
Hudaifa said to `Uthman, 'Whatever you would do if you heard someone talking of the reading of so-and-so, and reading of another, as the non-Muslims do, then do it now.' (p. 146, Anu `Amr `Uthman b. Sa`id al Dani, "K. al Muqni`", ed. O. Pretzl, Istanbul, 1932, p. 9)
`Uthman organised the suras in the order we are now familiar with. In addition, he restricted the reading to a single dialect -- that of Qurais in which it had been revealed. Hitherto, there had been a concession permitting the reciting of the Qur'an in dialects other than that of Mecca so that the burden of scruple imposed upon converts at the outset of the new revelation should be minimal. Those days were now recognised by `Uthman to be gone, not least since much danger was to be feared from the continuation of that freedom and especially since some overliteralness in the local attachment to a particular reading might give the impression of, or even lead to, the fragmentation of the Islamic unity. (pp. 155-156, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)
... Ubayy stoutly refused to abandon any part of the Qur'an wording he had received direct from the Prophet. Ubayy, we are told, would have none of the doctrine of the withdrawal of any part of the Qur'an text. (p. 179, Bukhari, "K. al Tafsir", ad Q 2.106 and commentaries)
'The Prophet taught me [ie. ibn Mas`ud] to recite seventy suras which I had mastered before Zaid had even become a Muslims.' (p. 166, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 17)
'Am I [ie. ibn Mas`ud] to be debarred from copying the mushafs and the job given to a man who was an infidel in his father's reins when I first became a Muslim?' (p. 166, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 17)
ibn Mus`ud, the eponym of the Qur'an of the Kufans, is reported to have burst out, 'I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy suras while Zaid still had his ringlets and was playing with his companions.' (p. 166, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 14)
`Abdullah is supposed to have enjoined his followers, 'Lay up your Qur'an's! How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy suras?" 'Am I,' asks Abdullah, 'to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?' (pp. 166-167, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 15)
I went to Abu Musa's house and saw there `Abdullah and Hudaifa. I sat with them. They had a mushaf that `Uthman had sent ordering them to make their Qur'an conform with it. Abu Musa declared that anything in his mushaf and lacking in `Uthman's was not to be omitted. Anything in `Uthman's and lacking in his own was to be added. Hudaifa asked, 'What is the point of all our work? Nobody in this region will give up the reading of this saikh, meaning `Abdullah, and nobody of Yemeni origin will give up the reading of Abu Musa.' Hudaifa it was who had advised `Uthman to unite the mushafs on the basis of a single mushaf. (p. 167, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 35)
That his [ie. `Uthman's] initiative in this direction was a total failure is, however, admitted in further hadiths which show `Uthman either resignedly permitting, or himself using, readings at variance with those enshrined in the mushaf associated with his name. (p. 168, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 39)
`Uthman sent for `Ali for information on the grievances of the rebels. Among these was resentment at his having 'expunged the mushafs'. `Uthman replied, 'The Qur'an came from God. I prohibited the variant readings since I feared dissension. But now, read it as you please.' (p. 168-169, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 36)
It is said that when `Uthman received the completed mushaf, he noticed certain linguistic irregularities. 'Had he who dictated it been of Hudail and the scribe of Thaqif,' he said, 'this would never had happened.' (p. 169, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 33)
Note: `Abdullah was Hudail.
After Othman's death, Marwan the Governor of Medina sent to Hafsa and demanded it. She refused to give it up so it stayed with her until she died. But Marwan was so concerned to have it that as soon as he returned from her funeral, he immediately sent to get it. The story is recorded by Ibn Abi Dawud (died 316 AH) in his Kitab Al-Masahif. He gives the Isnad down to Salem ben Abdullah who said, When Hafsa died and we returned from her funeral, Marwan sent with firm intention to Abdullah ben Omar (Hafsa's brother) that he must send him those pages, and Abdullah ben Omar sent them to him, and Marwan ordered it and they were torn up. And he said, I did this because whatever was in it was surely written and preserved in the (official) volume and I was afraid that after a time people will be suspicious of this copy or they will say there is something in it that wasn't written.
(William Campbell, "The Quran and the Bible in the Light of History and Science", Section Three, III.C)
The dialect problem had apparently not been overcome by the very work ascribed by `Uthman, as we have just seen. Nor had the reading problem been settled by his supposed provision of a uniform consonantal matrix. Goldziher has signaled a disputed vocalic reading for the very Tawba verse which Zaid is said to have reinstated: There has now come to you a prophet from amongst your own number (anfusikum); from amongst the most precious among you (anfasikum). The variant has been ascribed, not merely to Companions, but even to the Prophet himself! (p. 170, I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen de Islamischen Koranauslegung, Leiden, 1952, p. 35)
`Ali is said to have arranged his mushaf in the chronological order of the revelation and to have included his notes on the nasikh and the mansukh. (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 58)
The importance of this work would have been immense, but all Muhammad b. Sirin's efforts to locate this work in Medina came to nothing. (p. 216)
ibn `Abbas asked `Uthman what possessed him to place surat al Anfal, one of the mathani, with Bara'a, one of the mi'in, join them with no bismillah between them and place them among the seven lengthy suras. `Uthman replied that often the Prophet received quite long revelations. He would call for one of the scribes and say, 'Put these verses in the sura in which so-and-so occurs.' Anfal was among the first of the Medina revelations and Bara'a among the last. Since its contents resembled those of Anfal, `Uthman took it to belong with it, for the Prophet had died without explaining that it was part of it. (p. 164, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)
Malik had a shorter explanation for the absence of this bismillah. The beginning of Bara'a fell out and its bismillah fell out with it. (p. 164-165, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 65)
... the majority of the madahib are unanimously of the view that in certain circumstances, the penalty for adultery is death by stoning. Now, we know that this penalty is not only nowhere mentioned in our texts of the Qur'an, it is totally incompatible with the penalty that is mentioned: al zaniyatu wa al zani fajlidu kulla wahidin minhuma mi'ata jaldatin (The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each one of them one hundred strokes) (Q 24.2). (p. 72)
The 'basic form' of the report [of `Ubada] runs as follows: The Prophet said, 'Take it from me! God has now appointed a way for women: the virgin with the virgin, one hundred strokes and a year's banishment; the non-virgin with the non-virgin, one hundred strokes and stoning.' (p. 74, Safi`i, "Risalah", p. 20)
The descent of inspiration [wahy] was troublesome to the Prophet. His face would go ashen in colour. One day inspiration came down upon him and he showed the usual signs of distress. When he recovered, he said, 'Take it from me! God has now appointed a way for women: the non-virgin with the non-virgin and the virgin with the virgin. The non-virgin, one hundred strokes and death by stoning, the virgin, one hundred strokes and banishment for a year.' (p. 74, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)
We could tell when the inspiration descended upon the Prophet. When the words, 'or until God appoint a way', were revealed, and the inspiration ascended, the Prophet said, 'Take heed! God has now appointed the way: the virgin with the virgin, one hundred strokes and banishment for a year; the non-virgin with the non-virgin, one hundred strokes and death by stoning.' (pp. 74-75, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 79)
It is related that when a woman guilty of adultery was brought before `Ali, he flogged her and then had her stoned. Someone protested: 'but you have inflicted two penalties!' `Ali replied, 'I stoned her in accordance with the Sunna of the Prophet and flogged her in accordance with the Book of God.' (p. 75, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 103)
[`Umar said: ] Do not complain about stoning. It is a just claim and I am minded to write it in the mushaf. I fear that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find stoning in the Book of God', and on that pretext they will neglect a divine ruling which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim against the married person who fornicates, when there is adduced valid proof, or pregnancy ensues, or a confession is offered. (p. 77, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119)
`Ali reported that the stoning verse had been revealed but those who bore it together with other verses in their memories perished in the Yemama. (p. 121, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 14)
ibn `Abbas reports a sermon by `Umar in the course of which he said, 'Men! stoning is a penalty laid down by God. Do not neglect it. It is in the Book of God and the Sunna of your Prophet. The Messenger of God stoned; Abu Bakr stoned, and I have stoned.' (p. 75, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 6)
Malik reports ibn `Abbas as declaring, 'I heard `Umar b. al Khattab say, "Stoning in the Book of God is a just claim against the non-virgin, man or woman, who fornicates, when valid proof is adduced, or pregnancy ensues, or self-condemnation is volunteered."' (p. 75, Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud.)
[`Umar] announced from the Prophet's pulpit, God sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed to him the Book. Part of what God revealed was the stoning verse. We used to recite it and we memorised it. The Prophet stoned and we have stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find stoning in the Book of God', and will therefore neglect a divine injunction which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim.... (p. 77-78, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)
In a variant version `Umar fears that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find the stoning verse in the Book of God.' (p. 78)
[Umar said:] Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the holy book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the verse of Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say "By Allah's Book", we do not find the Verse of Rajam in Allah's Book, and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 539)
In the Mabsut, Sarakhsi reports, `Umar said from the pulpit, '... and part of what was revealed in the Qur'an read, "the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright". Some will repudiate this, and but that men would say, "`Umar has added to the Book of God," I will write it on the margin of the mushaf.' (p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, "Mabsut", 30 vols., Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36)
Malik reports also the celebrated hadith of the hired hand: Two men brought a case before the Prophet. One of them said, 'Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God.' The other, who was more familiar with litigation, said, 'Yes, Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God and let me speak first. My son served as a hired hand under this man, but he fornicated with his employer's wife. The man, informing me that my son had incurred the stoning penalty, I ransomed him from that penalty with 100 sheep and a slavegirl I had. Subsequently I enquired of the learned who informed me that the stoning penalty lay on the man's wife.'
The Messenger of God said, 'By Him in Whose hand is my soul! I will judge between you in accordance with the Book of God. Your cattle and slave girl are to be restored to you.' (Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud)
At this point, the direct speech ends, but the hadith continues, 'He awarded the son 100 strokes and banished him for a year. He ordered Unais al Aslami to go to the employer's wife, and in the event that she confess, imposed the stoning penalty. She confessed, and Unais stoned her.' There are strong grounds for considering this continuation foreign and irrelevant to the hadith. ibn Hajar, for example, comments,
The Book of God might refer to the verdict of God. It has also been held that it refers to the Qur'an. ibn Daqiq al `Id suggested that the first explanation was preferable since neither stoning nor banishment is mentioned in the Qur'an, part from the general injunction to obey the Prophet's commands. One might also consider the possibility that the reference is to God's words, 'or until God appoint a way'. The Prophet showed that the way was the flogging and banishment of the virgin, and stoning the non-virgin. A further possibility, it may be, is that the Book of God is a reference to a verse whose wording has been withdrawn, that is, the stoning verse, although the verse also fails to mention banishment. Finally, the reference may be to the Qur'an prohibition of wasting another's property without legal title to it. The man had taken possession of the other's cattle and slavegirl, but the Prophet insisted that they be returned. (p. 76-77, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 115)
The last suggestion may imply that the hadith at one time terminated with the words 'Your cattle and slavegirl are to be restored to you.'
The aunt of Abu Usama b. Sahl told him that the Prophet had instructed them in the reciting of the stoning verse. (p. 82, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning, we read it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God's book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684)
see also next section
Malik reports that when `Umar returned from the pilgrimage, he addressed the people of Medina, Men! the Sunna has been established, the obligatory duties imposed and you have been left in no uncertainty. Beware lest you neglect the stoning verse on account of those who say, 'We do not find two penalties in the Book of God.' The Prophet stoned, and we have stoned. By Him Who holds my soul in His Hand! but that men would say, '`Umar has added to the Book of God', I would write it in with my hand, 'The saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright.' (Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud, cf. "Fath", vol. 12, p. 119)
The version that occurs in the Hulya reads, 'I would write at the end of the Qur'an.' (p. 78)
Abu Ma`sar has,
But that men would say, '`Umar has written what is not the Book of God', I would write it in, for we used to recite it, 'The saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright, as an exemplary punishment from God. God is mighty, wise.' (p 78)
ibn Hajar compares two versions of the `Umar hadith, one related by `Ali b. `Abdullah, teacher of Bukhari, and to other related by Bukhari himself. In `Ali's version, we find `Umar declared, 'I fear that with the passage of time some will say, "We do not find stoning in the Book of God", and will neglect a divine injunction revealed by God. Stoning is a just claim against the non-virgin fornicator when valid proof is brought, or pregnancy occurs, or confession is made. We used to recite it, "the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright." The Messenger of God stoned and we have stoned.'
Bukhari's version stops at confession is made', and ibn Hajar suggests that Buhkari deliberately ignored the remainder of the hadith.
Nasa'i stated that he knew of no transmitter who included the words of the 'verse' in his hadith, apart from Sufyan who here transmits the report as from Zuhri to `Ali b. Abdullah. Nasa'i took Sufyan's version to be erroneous, as numerous transmitters relate the hadith from Zuhri without this addition. But ibn Hajar reminds that the report is transmitted by Malik and by others in this form which he judges to be 'correct'. (p. 79, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119)
... but Noldeke observed that the terms saikha and battata are alien to the vocabulary of the Qur'an. (p. 79, GdQ2, vol. 1, p. 251, n. 3)
An improved version had, 'as an exemplary punishment from God and His apostle.' (Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 540)
We have a report from `Umar that he said, 'The Messenger of God stoned, Abu Bakr stoned and I have stoned. I am not prepared to add to the Book of God, otherwise I would write it into the mushaf, for I fear that there will come some people who, not finding it, will not accept it.' (Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 213)
[`Umar summoned] a group of the Muhajirs and the Ansar and inscribe[d] their testimony on the margin of the mushaf: 'The testimony of `Umar and of NN that the Messenger of God stoned adulterers.' (K. al Mabani", in A. Jeffery, "Two Muqaddimahs", Cairo, 1954, p. 78)
Sarakhsi reports, `Umar said from the pulpit, '... and part of what was revealed in Qur'an read, "the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright". Some will repudiate this, and but that men would say, "`Umar has added to the Book of God," I will write it on the margin of the mushaf.' (p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, "Mabsut", 30 vols., Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36)
see also next section
Ubayy asked Zirr b. Hubais, 'How many verses do you recite in surat al Ahzab?' Zirr replied, 'Seventy-three verses.' Ubayy asked if that was all. 'I have seen it,' he said, 'when it was the same length as Baqara. It contained the words "The saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright, as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise."' (p. 78-79, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, pp. 210-11)
Ubayy said, 'It used to equal the length surat al Baqara and we used to recite in Ahzab the stoning verse.' Zirr asked, 'What is the stoning verse?' Ubayy recited, 'If the saikh and the saikha fornicate, stone them outright as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise.' (p. 80, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
Ahzab was identified as the sura originally containing the stoning verse, and, in addition to Ubayy and Abu Musa, `A'isa reports that Ahzab used to be recited, in the lifetime of the Prophet, as having 200 verses, but when `Uthman wrote out the mushafs, all they could find was its present length. (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25) A variant of this hadith speaks of writing out the mushaf with, however, no mention of date or attribution. ibn al Anbari concluded from `A'isa's report that God withdrew from the sura everything in excess of its present length, and Mekki reminds us that withdrawal is one of the modes of naskh. (p. 84, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 10) Ahzab has only seventy-three verses in today's mushaf. (p. 84)
Zaid b. Thabit and Sa`id b. al `As were writing out the mushaf. When they came to this verse, Zaid said, 'I heard the Prophet say, "the saikh and the saikha."' `Umar stated, 'When it was revealed, I went to the Messenger of God and said to him, "Shall I write it?" but he seemed to disapprove.' `Umar added, 'Don't you see that the mature, if unwed, would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if wed, would be stoned?' (p. 80, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26)
Marwan b. al Hakam asked Zaid why he would not write the verse in the mushaf. Zaid replied, Don't you see that the youth if married is stoned? We raised this question with `Umar and he said, 'I'll see to it.' He went to the Prophet and asked his permission to record the verse. The Prophet said he could not permit that. (p. 81-82, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)
`A'isa explains how the wording came to be omitted from the mushaf: The stoning verse and another verse were revealed and recorded on a sheet (sahifa) which was placed for safe-keeping under her bedding. When the Prophet fell ill and the household were preoccupied with nursing him, a domestic animal got in from the yard and gobbled up the sheet. (p. 86, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 15)
Safi`i ... knew and used the hadith about the stoning verse that had once figured in the Qur'an before the collection of the texts into the mushaf. (p. 86, Ikhtiflaf al Hadith, margin of Umm, vol. 7, p. 251)
The source conflict is acknowledged by ibn Hajar, who comments that the reason for the withdrawal of the stoning verse was that the Fiqh was at variance with the apparently general wording of the verse. (p. 81, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)
This observation may perhaps also explain why Malik, who does not present the text of the `Ubada report, nevertheless glosses the term saikh and saikha as thayyib and tayyiba (sc. non-virgin), reducing thereby the meaning of the stoning verse to coincide with the meaning of the `Ubada hadith. (p. 81)
Further, ibn Hajar concluded that the reason for the withdrawal of the wording of the verse was conflict of opinion among the Companions. He reports that `Umar addressed the people saying, Do not complain about stoning. It is a just claim and I was minded to write it into the mushaf, so I consulted Ubayy. But he said, 'Didn't you come to me once before, when I was asking the Prophet for permission to recite the verse? You shoved me in the chest with the words, "Are you asking him to permit the recitation of the stoning verse when the people are randy as donkeys?"' (p. 81, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)
Safi`i took the view that the source of the stoning penalty had been the Sunna of the Prophet. Other scholars fell into several classes. (Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Isma`il al Saffar, al Nahhas, "K. al nasikh wa al mansukh fi al Qur'an al Karim", Cairo?, pub. Zaki Mubarak, n.d., pp. 6-7) We know of those who, finding no reference to the stoning penalty in the Qur'an simply rejected it. They insisted on acknowledging only the Qur'an's flogging penalty. (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, introduction to K. al Muharabin)
In the 'hired hand' hadith, the Prophet said, 'I shall judge in accordance with the Book of God.' He therefore inflicted the stoning penalty, of which there is no mention in the Book of God. He must have meant, therefore, by the expression the Book of God, the hukm, the verdict of God, revealed in the manner stated. (p. 103, "K. al Mabani", in A. Jeffery, "Two Muqaddimahs", Cairo, 1954, p. 81)
ibn Zafar in the Yanbu` considered that this case ought not be included in the list of ayas withdrawn in respect of their wording alone. It was the subject of khabar al wahid which gives no basis for statements as to the text of the Qur'an. In an undisguised reference to the parallel quarrels as to the wording of Q 2.106, and its interpretation, he argues that, in any event, stoning is not an instance of naskh. It is an example of raf` or of nasa' - deliberate omission from the mushaf. The rulings of verses of this kind can be known from sources other than the original texts. (Burton: The term used, munsa'/mansa', derives from reading Q 2.106 as: aw nansa'.) Suyuti rejects Zarkasi's convenient solution. Stoning cannot be considered from the angel of khabar al wahid. `Umar had received his Qur'an text directly from the Prophet. His own solution is merely apologetic: the reason for the withdrawal of this wording is the divine solicitude for the welfare of the Muslims. Non-recording of the verse means non-dissemination of the ruling. Where committed, the offense is best left undisclosed (a detail which has some measure of support in a source as distant in time as Malik, K. al Hudud).
Zurqani improves even on Suyuti's banality by adding that the Qur'an, the Word of God, is inimitable in, among other respects, its brevity -- hence the omission of this verse! (Muhammad `Abdul `Azim al Zurqani, "Manahil al `Irfan fi `ulum al Qur'an", 2 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1954, vol. 2, pp. 115-16)
Besides, he argues, such things are unseemly, not merely to perform, but even to mentioned in so holy a book. (Muhammad `Abdul `Azim al Zurqani, "Manahil al `Irfan fi `ulum al Qur'an, 2 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1954, vol. 2, pp. 115-16)
Ubayy reports, 'The Messenger of God said to me, "God has commanded me to instruct you in the reciting of the Qur'an." He then recited: "Did not those who rejected the Prophet among the people of the Book and the associators..." The verse continued, "Did ibn Adam possess a wadi of property", or, "Were ibn Adam to ask for a wadi of property and he received it, it would asked for a second, and if he received that, he would demand a third wadi. Only dust will fill the maw of ibn Adam, but God relents to him who repents. The very faith in God's eyes is the Hanifiya, not Judaism nor Christianity. Whoso does good, it will never be denied him." (p. 82-83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
ibn `Abbas said, 'Did ibn Adam possess two wadis of pelf, he would desire a third. Only dust will fill the maw of ibn Adam, but God relents to him who repents.' `Umar asked, 'What is this?' ibn `Abbas replied that Ubayy had instructed him to recite this. `Umar took ibn `Abbas to confront Ubayy. `Umar said, 'We don't say that.' Ubayy insisted that the Prophet instructed him. `Umar asked him, 'Shall I write it into the mushaf, in that case?' Ubayy said, 'Yes.' This was before the copying of the `Uthman mushafs on the basis of which the practice now rests. (p. 83, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 17)
Abu Musa al An`sari reports, 'There was revealed a sura the like of Baqara, but it was later withdrawn.' He recalled of it, 'God will assist this polity with peoples who have no share in the Hereafter. Did ibn Adam posses two wadis of property, he would crave a third. Nothing will fill the maw of ibn Adam but dust, but God will relent to him who repents.' (p. 83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
Abu Waqid al Laithi reports, 'When inspiration came upon the Prophet, we would go to him and he would instruct us in what had been revealed. I went to him once and he said, "God says, 'We sent down wealth for the upkeep of prayer and alms-giving. Were ibn Adam to possess a wadi he would desire another like it, which, if he had, he would desire yet another. Nothing will fill the maw of ibn Adam but dust, but God relents to him who repents.'"' (p. 83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
Buraid claims to have heard the Prophet recite ibn Adam at prayer. The aya was in surat Yusuf. (p. 83, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 18)
Abu Musa said, 'We used to recite surat al Ahzab, likening it for length and severity with Bara'a. But I have been caused to forget it, except that I recall the ibn Adam verse. (p. 83-84, Abu al Fadl Sihab al Din Mahmud b. `Abdullah al Alusi, "Ruh al Ma`ani", 6 vols., idarat al taba`a al muniraya, Cairo, n.d., vol. 1, p. 315)
Anas was unable to say whether ibn Adam was a Qur'an verse or not. He reports from Ubayy, 'We supposed that ibn Adam was a Qur'an verse until surat al takathur was revealed.' (p. 84, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, no. 1983) This report reduces ibn Adam from ever having been a Qur'an verse, to being merely a tafsir of Takathur. (p. 84, Bukhari, K. al Tafsir, ad Q 2.106)
Narrated Aisha:
It had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, book 8, no. 3421)
`A'isa reported, 'In what was revealed, ten attested sucklings were required to established the ban. The ten were later replaced by five. The Prophet died and the five were still being recited in the Qur'an.' She used to say, 'The Qur'an was revealed with ten attested sucklings setting up the bar. These later became five.' No man ever called upon her who had not completed a course of five sucklings. `Abdullah b. al Zubair reports, 'The Prophet said, "Not one and not two sucklings constitute the bar, nor one nor two sucks."' `Urwa reports that the Prophet commanded the wife of Abu Hudaifa to nurse Salim five times to set up the bar. She did so and always considered Salim a son.
Salim b. `Abdullah reports that `A'isa sent him away and refused to see him. He was being suckled by her sister Umm Kulthum who had fallen ill after suckling him only three times. Salim said, `I could never visit `A'isa, since I have not completed the course of ten.' ... Safi`i adopted the rule of five sucklings as coming from the Prophet on the strength of the `A'isa report that the five were Qur'anic and constituted the ban. (Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i, al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in "Umm", 7 vols., Bulaq 1324, vol 5, pp. 23-4, and pp. 87-88, Mekki, "bab aqsam al naskh")
Hafsa sent `Asim b. `Abdullah b. Sa`d to her sister Fatima to be nursed ten times. This was to enable him to visit her. (p. 88, Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i, al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in "Umm", 7 vols., Bulaq 1324, vol 7, p. 208)
ibn Qutaiba (A.H. 276) ... addresses himself to the comparison between that hadith as reported by Muhammad b. Ishaq and the 'sounder' version from Malik. In the opinion of the Hadith specialists, Malik was by far the more reliable transmitter. He reported from `Abdullah b. abi Bakr from `Amra from `A'isa that she said,
Among what had been revealed in the Qur'an was the provision that ten attested sucklings set a bar to marriage. The ten were subsequently replaced by the rule that five attested sucklings set up the bar. The Prophet died and the five were still being recited as part of the Qur'an. (p 95, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim, ibn Qutaiba, "K. ta'wil mukhtalif al Hadith", Cairo, 1966/1386, pp. 310-15)
Among the fuqaha' who adapted their Fiqh to this report were Safi`i and Ishaq (b. Rahawaih), both of whom made five the minimum line of demarcation between what does and what does not establish a bar to marriage. (p. 95)
Suyuti intervened to suggest one of the two interpretations of `A'isa's report: - the Prophet's death approached and these words were still being recited as part of the revelation;
- the Prophet died and it was some time before all the people came to hear of the abrogation of the verse.
(p. 97, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 22)
[Hudaifa's remarked] 'They don't recite a quarter of al Bara'a today.' (p. 130)
Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor `Umar nor `Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an. (Burton: The published text ought here to be amended: for "fa lamma jama`a Abu Bakr", I propose to read: "wa lamma yajma` Abu Bakr", to follow: "lam yuktab".) Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur'an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur'an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other. (pp. 126-127, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23)
Anas is reported in the two Sahih's as declaring: 'There was revealed concerning those slain at Bi'r Ma`una a Qur'an verse which we recited until it was withdrawn: "Inform our tribe on our behalf that we have met with our Lord. He has been well pleased with us and has satisfied our desires."' (pp. 48-49, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26)
Anas ibn Malik said:
We used to read a verse of the Qur'an revealed in their connection, but later the verse was cancelled. It was: "convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased." (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 288)
`Abdullah b. Mas`ud reported that the Prophet had taught him to recite a particular Qur'an verse which he learned by heart and copied out in his personal mushaf. When night came, and `Abdullah rose to pray, he desired to recite that aya but could not recall a syllable. 'In the morning he consulted his mushaf, only to find the page blank! He mentioned this to the Prophet who told him that that verse had been withdrawn that very night. (p. 133, 199)
For Q 2.106 at least a dozen suggested reading have been recorded -- ample evidence of the extent, and hence of the significance, of the dispute as to the meaning. What was eventually settled as the joint exegesis of Q 87 and Q2 (the interpretation of each of these verses operating upon that of the other) was that there was indeed verses once revealed to Muhammad as part of the 'total Qur'an revelation' which, however, have been omitted from the collected texts of the Qur'an, the mushaf. That had by no means occurred from Muhammad's having merely forgotten them. Q 87 refers to God's will and Q 2 uses the root n.s.y. in the causative. God had caused Muhammad to forget in conformity with the mysterious divine intention as to the final contents of the Book of God. (p. 48)
He instances the report from Abu Musa as to the sura like Bara'a which was revealed, but later withdrawn. Abu Musa recalled something of it, but Mekki resolutely refuses to go into further detail. The Qur'an text cannot be established on the basis of reports. The many examples of this category he would therefore prefer to pass over in silence. God alone knows the truth of the matter. (p. 85, Mekki, "bab aqsam al naskh")
The extreme Sh`ia, the Rafidis, alleged that the impious rulers had expunged from the mushaf some 500 verses including those which most unambiguously marked out `Ali as the appointed successor to the Prophet.... The rebels against `Uthman, justifying their revolt, enumerated amongst their grievances their resentment at his 'having expunged the mushafs.' (Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 36)
Farra' (A.H. 207) reports: 'Some Muslims read Q 2.158: "There shall be no blame on him if he do not perform the tawaf."' (p. 31, Safi`i, "Risalah", p. 17) He comments that this reading can be explained in one of two ways: - That the negative is linguistically inoperative. cf. Q 7.12: 'ma mana'ak an la tasjuda', which of course means an tasjuda.
- Alternatively, the tawaf may be entirely optional. But the first explanation is the basis of the practice.
`Ata' regarded the tawaf as entirely optional. This view, Tabari explains, was explicitly derived from the variant reading of Q 2.158 transmitted in the mushaf of `Abdullah b. Mas`ud. The same is reported from Anas, ibn `Abbas and Mujahid. (p. 31, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Jam` al Bayan `an ta'wil ay al Qur'an", ed. Sakir, 15 vols. to date, Cairo, 1954-, vol. 3, p. 320)
Q. 589 regulates the penalties for breach of oaths. Among these is a three day's fast and the Hanafis argue that the fast should be consecutive. `Abdullah is said to read, 'a fast of three [consecutive] days.' (p. 34, Abu Hamid Muhammad b. Muhammad al Gazali, "K. al Mustasfa", 2 vols., Bulaq, 1322, vol. 1, p. 102)
The same variant reading was attributed to Ubayy ... [and also talks about mut`a marriages] (p. 35)
On the basis of a variant consonantal reading of Q 2.106 ... Safi`i interpreted the verse to mean: 'Whatsoever verse We replace and whatsoever revelation We postpone to a later time, We shall bring another like it, or better than it in the meantime.' This reading, nansa', like the reading adopted by the majority, nunsi, represents equally the flight from a reading of the script which provoked serious theological compunction for the Muslims, that is, nansa (we forget). God does not forget! (p. 63, Safi`i, "Risalah", p. 17)
Sarakhsi (AH 490), a Hanafi, argued, The fast in expiation of a breach of oath is consecutive on the basis of `Abdullah's reading which was in circulation as late as the time of Abu Hanifa, but did not turn out to be mutawatir, the sole criterion for inclusion in the mushaf. No one can question `Abdullah's veracity, nor his memory. We can but conclude that the word 'consecutive' was part of the original wording of the Qur'an and has been preserved in `Abdullah's reading. The word was apparently withdrawn in the lifetime of the Prophet. The Muslims were caused to forget it, with the exception of `Abdullah who was honoured with its preservation, in order to preserve the ruling. The isolate sunna-hadith may establish a practice; the isolate Qur'an-hadith can do no less. (p. 35, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al Sarakhsi, "Usul", 2 vols., Haiderabad, 1372, vol 2, p. 81)
Sarakhsi argued that God had caused the other Companions to forget his reading, but permitted `Abdullah to transmit it so that the ruling might be preserved. (p. 172)
Safi`i argued that, as the Qur'an did not stipulate that it should be consecutive, the Muslim was free to decide whether to fast on consecutive of separate days. The Q 5.89 fast should be read on the analogy of the substitute fast imposed for breach for Ramadhan. The Qur'an merely says 'a similar number of days.' (Q 2.183) (p. 34, Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i, al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in "Umm", 7 vols., Bulaq 1324, vol 7, p. 60)
Gazali argues,
The fast in expiation for a breach of one's oath need not be consecutive, even if `Abdullah did read, 'three [consecutive] days'. This reading is not universally acknowledged to be the Qur'an text. Perhaps `Abdullah adduce this reading in order to elucidate what he took to be a justifiable exegesis. Or, perhaps he may have attracted to Q 5.89, by analogy, the word 'consecutive', which does occur in Q 58.4. Abu Hanifa, conceding that the reading is not Qur'anic, accepted it, but as a Hadith. The practice, however, should be based exclusively on what is explicitly attributed to the Prophet. (p. 35, Gazali, vol. 1, p. 102)
... He further adduced `Abdullah's reading in arguing that the fast in expiation of the breach of an oath is consecutive. We do not accept this view because that reading has been repealed. (p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
[Ubayy] was credited with reading Q 4.24, a verse charged with significance for the Muslim law on marriage, in a variant version: fa ma stamta`tum bihi minhunna [ila ajalin musamman] (p. 35, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 53)
We argued that it was irrelevant to the revealed status of the Qur'an document whether one read: aswabu, aqwamu or ahya'u (Q 73.6); saiha or zaqya (Q 36.29). On the other hand, it was of the highest significance for the history of the development of the Islamic Law and to the attendant school polemic whether one read fa ma stamta`tum bihi minhunna (Q 4.24) with or without the attempted interpolation ila ajalin musamman. (p. 178, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 53)
[Note: Burton believes that variant readings are interpolations.]
Two opposing doctrines -- the invalidation of the ritual purity [wudu] and the contrary doctrine -- could both be referred to the Qur'an, according as the contending fuquha read: lamastum / laamastum or the permissibility of sexual intercourse with the menstruating woman at the expiry of her period but before she has cleansed herself, and the contrary doctrine, according as they read either yathurna or yattahirna. There is an interesting discussion on verses yielding two-fold readings. Abu al Laith reported two views: 1. God had uttered them both; 2. God had uttered only one, but permitted the verse to be read in two possible ways. Samarqandi's own view was that if each of the two readings was susceptible of a distinct interpretation and legal application, God had uttered both. In such instances, the two readings were the equivalent of two distinct revelations. If the two readings yielded a single meaning, God had uttered only one reading, but permitted the other, owing to the differences between the dialect of the peninsula Arabs. (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
Q 5.6, the verse imposing the wudu yielded a two-fold reading, the distinction this time residing in the vowelling. 'The verse was revealed to sanction two distinct legal doctrines:
arjulakum - enjoined the washing of the feet
arjulikum - permitted the wiping of the feet'
(p. 36-37)
The Muslims were fully alive to the import of variant readings: 'The differences in the readings indicate the differences in the legal rulings.' (p. 36, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
Anas recited: hiya asaddu wat'an wa aswabu qilan. Some one pointed out that the 'correct' reading was aqwamu; aqwamu, he retorted, aswabu, ahya'u --- they're all the same. (p. 34, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 54)
Another case in point is `Abdullah's reading of Q 5.38: faqta'u aimanahum (for aidiyahum). (p. 38, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
... and our madhab adduce as evidence of the legitimacy of basing a ruling on a variant reading the practice of cutting off the right hand of the thief on the ground of `Abdullah's reading, also adduced by Abu Hanifa. (p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82) [Note: Q 5:38 says only say cut off hands]
It is reported of Ubayy that he read: kullama ada'a lahum masaw fihi [marru fihi sa`aw fihi] and from `Abdullah that he read lilladina amanu anziruna [amhiluna akhhiruna] (p. 39, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 47) Related to the reading just attributed to Ubayy, is the statement that the transmission of the reading, famdu ila dikr allah, showed that the meaning of the Qur'an fas`aw is 'go!' rather than 'run!' or 'hurry!'. (p. 39, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
`A'isa's reading, which she shared with Hafsa: wa al salat al wusta salat al'asr (p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
[Q 2.106: ma nansakh min ayatin aw nunsi ha na'ti bi khairin min ha aw mithli ha.] Sa`d b. abi Waqqas recited Q 2.106: aw tansa ha. His reading was challenged, on the ground that Sa`id b. al Musayyab read: aw tunsa ha. Sa`d countered with a reference to two further verses, Q 87.6-7: sa nuqri'uk fa la tansa [illa ma sa'a allah] and Q 18.24 udkur rabbaka ida nasita. Sa`d, a Meccan, in addition, challenged the isnad of the reading of Sa`id, a Medinese. (p. 64, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", vol. 2, p. 535)
Q 4.101 apparently indicates that travelers may abbreviate the ritual prayer if threatened with attack. That the restriction is absolute, in the sense that the prayer might be cut short only if the Muslims had reason to fear attack, was a view attributed by some of the fuqaha' to `A'isa. `Ali is the authority for the contrary view that the ritual prayer may be shortened by travelers. Appealing to asbab al nuzul, `Ali claimed that the first half of the verse had been revealed to the Prophet in reply to a question put to him on the subject. The answer, as revealed, read 'No blame is incurred if, when traveling, you shorten the prayer.' Only a year later, on the occasion of a fresh revelation, was the context extended to include the reference to fear of attack. The addition, however, bears only upon the second half of the verse. (p. 150, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 90-1)
According to Ubayy b. Kab, one of the secretaries of Muhammad, the verse reads: "O children of Israel, I am God's messenger to you, and I announce to you a prophet whose community will be the last community and by which God will put the seal on the prophets and messengers." where "Ahmad" is not mentioned. (Abdul Haqq)
"Among things which have reached me about what Jesus of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testamant of Jesus son of Mary: "He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the Law must be fulfilled, 'They hateh me without a cause' [ie. without reason]. But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord's presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord's presence he [shall bear] witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that you should not be in doubt." The Munahhemna [God bless and preserve him] in Syriac is Muhammad, in Greek his is the Paraclete. (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, pp. 103, 104)
'Yazid b. Ma`awiya was in the mosque in the time of al Walid b. `Uqba, sitting in a group among them was Hudaifa. An official called out, 'Those who follow the reading of Abu Musa, go to the corner nearest the Kinda door. Those who follow `Abdullah's reading, go the corner nearest `Abdullah's house.' Their reading of Q 2.196 did not agree. One group read, 'Perform the pilgrimage to God.' The others read it 'Perform the pilgrimage to the Ka`ba.' Hudaifa became very angry, his eyes reddened and he rose, parting his qamis at the waits, although in the mosque. This was during the reign of `Uthman. Hudaifa exclaimed, 'Will someone go the Command of the Faithful, or shall I go myself? This is what happened in the previous dispensations.' He came over and sat down, saying, 'God sent Muhammad who, with those who went forward, fought those who went back until God gave victory to His religion. God took Muhammad and Islam made strides. To succeed him, God chose Abu Bakr who reigned as long as God chose. God then took him and Islam made rapid strides. God appointed `Umar who sat in the midst of Islam. God then took him also. Islam spread rapidly. God next chose `Uthman. God's oath! Islam is on the point of such expansion that soon you will replace all other religions.' (p. 143, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11)
Sura 33:6 "The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers..." "... in some Qiraats, like that of Ubai ibn Kab, occur also the word "and he is a father to them...." (A. Yusuf Ali, "The Holy Quran", 1975, note 3674)
Sura 5:63
"Shall I tell you of an evil worse than that, for retribution with God? He who God cursed him, and was angry with him, and made some of them into monkeys and pigs, and worshiped (the idol) al-taghut." Jeffery has found record of 19 alternate readings; seven attributed to Ibn Mas`ud, four to Ubai b. Ka`b, six to Ibn Abbas, and one each to `Ubaid b. `Umair and Anas b. Malik.... Here are the readings attributed to Ibn Mas`ud.
wa man `abadu al-taghuta,
wa `abadata al-taghuti,
wa `ubada al-taghutu,
wa `abuda al-taghutu,
wa `ubuda al-taghuti,
wa `ubidati al-taghutu,
ubbada al-taghuta
(translation by William Campbell, "The Quran and the Bible in the Light of History and Science", Section Three, III.C)
sura 3:19:
`Abdullah has "The way of the Hanifs" instead of "Behold, the [true] religion (din) of God is Islam. (Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)
sura 3:39:
`Abdullah has "Then Gabriel called to him, 'O Zachariah'", instead of the Uthmanic reading: "Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sactuary." (Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)
sura 9:
`Abdullah's codex for sura 9 begins with the Bismilah, while the `Uthmanic text does not. (Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)
`Abdullah's codex contained Shi'ite readings in suras 5:67; 24:35; 26:215; 33:25,33,56; 42:23; 47:29; 56:10; 59:7; 60:3; 75:17-19. (Arthur Jeffery, Materials, pp. 40, 65, 68, Leiden, 1937)
Goldziher has signaled a disputed vocalic reading for the very Tawba verse which Zaid is said to have reinstated: There has now come to you a prophet from amongst your own number (anfusikum); from amongst the most precious among you (anfasikum). The variant has been ascribed, not merely to Companions, but even to the Prophet himself! (p. 170, I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen de Islamischen Koranauslegung, Leiden, 1952, p. 35)
`Abdullah reports, 'We differed about a sura, as to whether it consisted of thirty-five or thirty-six verses, so we went to the Prophet who was engaged in conversation with `Ali. When we told him we disagreed over the reading, his face reddened as he replied, "Those before you perished through their disagreements." He whispered something to `Ali who said, "The Prophet commands you to recite as you were taught."' (p. 149, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, "Tafsir", pp. 23-4)
Ubai's codex was known to contain two Suras not found in the Othmanic text -- Surat al-Khal` and Surat al-afd, as well as verse on men's greed following Sura 10:24. (William Campbell, "The Quran and the Bible in the Light of History and Science", Section Three, III.B) [Note: surat al-Khal has three verses, and surat al-Hafd has six, Jeffery p. 180ff]
In addition to these two men, Islamic history and Hadiths mention primary collections made by Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet's son-in-law, whose codex was arranged in chronological order starting with Sura 96; by Ibn Abbas, whose codex is mentioned by Al-Suyuti (Itqan, 154) as including the two extra Suras of Ubai; and by Abu Musa, whose codex was used by the people of Basra. It also contained the two extra Suras of Ubai (Itqan 154) as well as the verse on the greed of men (Sahih Muslim, 1, 285-286). (William Campbell, "The Quran and the Bible in the Light of History and Science", Section Three, III.B)
The Qadi `Iyyad reports that in the night prayer the Prophet recited Q 4 before Q 3 and that that was the order of the two chapters in the mushaf of Ubayy. This led the Qadi to conclude that the sura order had not been fixed by the Prophet, but had been left to the discretion of the Companions. (p. 216, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 32)
Baqillani, nothing that the order of the suras is not insisted upon for the purposes of prayer, private study or public instruction, supposed that this explained the different ordering reported to have occurred in the Companion codices. (p. 216-217)
The codex ascribed to `Abdullah is said to lack three of the suras present in our (the `Uthmanic) text. The codices ascribed to ibn `Abbas, Ubayy and Abu Musa are said to contain two suras which the `Uthmanic text lacks. (p. 220, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 65)
The Mu`tazili scholar al Nazzam is reported to have impugned `Abdullah's memory on the ground that he had denied two suras (sic) which are part of the Book of God.... This is a reference, says ibn Qutaiba, to Q 113 and Q 114 ... What induced `Abdullah to refrain from recording the two suras in his mushaf was that he observed that the Prophet used the chapters as charms to invoke the divine protection upon his grandsons, al Hasan and al Husain. (pp. 220-221, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim, ibn Qutaiba, "K. ta'wil mukhtalif al Hadith", Cairo, 1966/1386, pp. 31)
A similar cause led Ubayy, on the contrary, to copy into his mushaf the two qunut prayers which he noted the Prophet recited at the ritual service. `Abdullah, taking two chapters to be prayers, thought them to be no part of the Qur'an, while Ubayy, talking two prayers to be suras, thought that they were part of the Qur'an. (p. 221)
[Fakhr al Din al Razi observes:]
The reports transmitted in certain ancient books to the effect that ibn Mas`ud denied that the Fatiha and the two charm suras are part of the Qur'an are troublesome. If we accept that a mutawatir tradition had been achieved in the days of the Companions, then the three chapters are part of the Qur'an and `Abdullah's denial amounts to disbelief [kufr]. If, on the other hand, we hold that tawatur had not been achieved in the days of the Companions, it follows that the Qur'an is not mutawatir. What springs most readily to mind is that the reports from `Abdullah are quite unfounded. This cuts the know of the dilemma. The Qadi Abu Bakr said, 'It is not soundly reported from `Abdullah that these three chapters are not part of the Qur'an. Such a statement has not been reported from him. What he did was merely to erase these chapters and omit them from his text since he did not approve of their being written. This does not imply that he denied that they were part of the Qur'an. The Sunna in his view was that they should record only what the Prophet had commanded to be recorded and `Abdullah did not have information that the Prophet had himself recorded these suras or commanded that they be recorded.' al Nawawi says in his commentary on the Muhaddab, 'The Muslims are unanimously of the opinion that the three suras are part of the Qur'an and that anyone who denies one of them is an unbeliever. What has been reported about `Abdullah is groundless and thoroughly unsound.'
ibn Hazm said in the Muhalla, 'The thing is a lie fathered upon `Abdullah. Only the reading from `Abdullah as transmitted from `Asim from Zirr from ibn Mas`ud is authentic and in that reading, the three suras are present. (A. Jeffery, "Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an, Leiden, 1937, p. 21)
But ibn Hajar in the Fath accepts the reports about `Abdullah as sound. He states that both Ahmad and ibn Hibban report that `Abdullah would not write these chapters in his mushaf. Ahmad's son, in the supplement to the Musnad, al Tabarani and ibn Mardawaih all report from al A`mas and Abu Ishaq from `Abdul Rahman b. Yazid al Nakha`i that he said '`Abdullah used to erase the two charm suras from his records saying, "They are not part of the Book of God."' Similar reports are related by al Bazzar and al Tabarani with the addition that, as he erased them `Abdullah said, 'The Prophet merely commanded that they be used as charm prayers.' `Abdullah never recited them in his ritual prayers.
al Bazzar adds, 'None of the Companions concurred with this view of `Abdullah's. Further, it is ascertained that the Prophet recited them at his ritual prayers.' ibn Hajar concludes that the allegation that the whole thing is a lie fathered on `Abdullah must be dismissed. Attacks upon hadiths of unexceptionable isnad are quite unacceptable in the absence of further evidence. Since the isnads of these reports about `Abdullah are sound, they must be accepted without further ado. A means ought to be sought whereby they might be interpreted. The Qada and others took the reports to show `Abdullah's reluctance to write these suras into the mushaf. Here is an interpretation which commends itself, excepting that the sound report states that `Abdullah said, 'The charm prayers are not part of the Book of God.' Now, if one construes the words, 'Book of God' as a reference to the mushaf, this complements the interpretation.
Some have reviewed the drift of the reports felt this harmonisation to be somewhat far-fetched. ibn al Sabbag added that `Abdullah is not quite certain as to the status of the three chapters at the time when he first made his remarks. The consensus of the Companions as to the contents of the mushaf was first reached after that time. The three suras were first declared mutawatira during `Abdullah's lifetime. It was simply that they had not at first been mutawatira in his private opinion.
ibn Qutaiba, resuming his comment on `Abdullah's view of the matter, refrained from expressing any opinion as to whether `Abdullah or the Companions were right or wrong. As for the reports that he had omitted the Fatiha from his mushaf on the grounds that that chapter was not part of the Qur'an God forbid!
`Abdullah took the view that the Qur'an was to be recorded and to be assembled between the two covers to preclude any doubt and to obviate any forgetting, any addition or any loss. `Abdullah could see that all these things were quite inconceivably in respect of the Fatiha, on account of its brevity and given the fact that every Muslim is required to memorise it for the purpose of prayer. (pp. 222-224, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 79)
The Qadi Abu Bakr holds 'that the entirety of the Qur'an, as God revealed it, and as He commanded that it be recorded, such as He did not abrogate, nor withdraw in respect of the wording alone, is represented in the mushaf of `Uthman.' (p. 195, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 61)
Bukhari preserves a hadith to the effect that some men waited upon ibn `Abbas, cousin and supporter of `Ali, and later upon Muhammad b. al Hanafiya, son of `Ali and himself a figurehead in the Si'a's claim on behalf of the Holy Family. To the question whether Muhammad had 'left anything' each of these notables in turn replied that Muhammad had left no more than may be found between the 'two covers'. ibn Hajar comments, 'Muhammad did not omit from the mushaf any part of the Qur'an which ought to be publicly recited [at prayer].' (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 53)
The Qadi Abu Bakr al Baqillani states, 'The entire Qur'an revealed by God and commanded by Him to be recorded in writing, except what He suppressed, wording and ruling together, or wording only, although He may also have suppressed the ruling, is this which is between the two covers. Not one jot is missing and not one title has been added.' (p. 131, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 61)
`Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? Much of the Qur'an has gone [d h b]. Let him say instead, "I have got what has survived."' (p. 117, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
Some of us met to exchange hadith reports. One fellow said, 'Enough of this! Refer to the Book of God.' Imran b. Husain said, 'You're a fool! Do you find in the Book of God the prayers explained in detail? Or the Fast? The Qur'an refers to them in general terms only. It is the Sunna which supplies the detailed explanation.' (p. 21, al Hamdani, "I`tibar", pp. 24-5)
No madhab permits unbeliever-believer inheritance; slave-free man inheritance; homicide-victim inheritance. All madahib accept the testimony of two male witnesses in homicide cases. These and many other agreed principles and procedures are unmentioned in the Qur'an. (p. 23)
[Safi`i: ] 'The Sunna is the judge of the Book, it elucidates it'. (p. 29, al Hamdani, "I`tibar", p. 25)
The Muslim exegetes concluded, on the basis of their reading of Q 87.6-7 that they must distinguish between the Qur'an and the mushaf. Relative to the first, the second is obviously incomplete. (p. 81-82)
Tabari, the exegete, embraced and defended the view that there were omissions from the mushaf which must therefore be distinct from the Qur'an. By the latter, he would understand all that had ever been revealed to Muhammad. By mushaf, he would understand all of the Qur'an which had been preserved in writing and passed down to posterity by the first generation of Muslims, the Companions. (p. 106)
Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor `Umar nor `Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an. (Burton: The published text ought here to be amended: for "fa lamma jama`a Abu Bakr", I propose to read: "wa lamma yajma` Abu Bakr", to follow: "lam yuktab".) Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur'an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur'an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other. (pp. 126-127, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23)
`Abdullah b. Mas`ud reported that the Prophet had taught him to recite a particular Qur'an verse which he learned by heart and copied out in his personal mushaf. When night came, and `Abdullah rose to pray, he desired to recite that aya but could not recall a syllable. 'In the morning he consulted his mushaf, only to find the page blank! He mentioned this to the Prophet who told him that that verse had been withdrawn that very night. (p. 133, 199)
There are, or there appear to be, references to Muhammad's forgetting in the Qur'an: Q 17.86: If We wished, We could make away with what We have revealed to you.
Q 87.6-7: We shall teach you to recite it and you will not forget -- except what God wills.
Q 2.106: ma nansakh min ayatin aw nunsi ha na'ti bi khairin min ha aw mithli ha. (p. 47-48)
'The Messenger of God heard a man recite by night and said, "May God have mercy on that man! He has just reminded me of a verse so-and-so and I had forgotten from sura such-and-such." ' (p. 129, Bukhari, "K. Fad'il al Qur'an", bab nisyan al Qur'an)
The Prophet recited the Qur'an and omitted an aya. When he had finished the prayer, he asked, 'Is Ubayy in the mosque?' 'Here I am, Messenger of God.'
'Then why didn't you prompt me?'
'I thought the aya had been withdrawn.'
'It hasn't been withdrawn, I forgot it.' (p. 65-66, `Abdul Rahman al Tha`alibi, "al Jawahir al Hisan fi tafsir al Qur'an", 2 vols., Algiers, 1905, vol. 1, p. 95)
[Note: Muslims believed this refers only to his human memory, and does not affect his prophetic office]
These and similar instances provide the exegesis of the Qur'anic texts.... By degrees, what was originally exegesis penetrated into the actual reading. This is more common than exegesis and better founded. At the least, the readings show the correctness of the tafsir. (p. 38, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
The variant readings were classed then as isolate and the legitimacy of deriving legal rulings from them was long debated: Safi`i does not have a statement on the question, but what may be deduced from this practice is that he thought it not permissible. Those who took his view argued that the isolate reading had been transmitted as Qur'an, whereas it is not. Those who permit the derivation of a ruling from the isolate reading plead the analogy of the isolate hadith. This line was approved by ibn al Subki in Jam` al Jawami`, and our madhab adduce as evidence of the legitimacy of basing a ruling on a variant reading the practice of cutting off the right hand of the thief on the ground of `Abdullah's reading, also adduced by Abu Hanifa. He further adduced `Abdullah's reading in arguing that the fast in expiation of the breach of an oath is consecutive. We do not accept this view because that reading has been repealed. (p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
Abu 'Ubaid [Ah. 224], in his Fada'il al Qur'an, stated that the function of the isolate reading was the elucidation of the mashur reading. For example, `A'isa's reading, which she shared with Hafsa: wa al salat al wusta salat al'asr (p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
Sarakhsi (AH 490), a Hanafi, argued, The fast in expiation of a breach of oath is consecutive on the basis of `Abdullah's reading which was in circulation as late as the time of Abu Hanifa, but did not turn out to be mutawatir, the sole criterion for inclusion in the mushaf. No one can question `Abdullah's veracity, nor his memory. We can but conclude that the word 'consecutive' was part of the original wording of the Qur'an and has been preserved in `Abdullah's reading. The word was apparently withdrawn in the lifetime of the Prophet. The Muslims were caused to forget it, with the exception of `Abdullah who was honoured with its preservation, in order to preserve the ruling. The isolate sunna-hadith may establish a practice; the isolate Qur'an-hadith can do no less. (p. 35, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al Sarakhsi, "Usul", 2 vols., Haiderabad, 1372, vol 2, p. 81)
Sarakhsi argued that God had caused the other Companions to forget his reading, but permitted `Abdullah to transmit it so that the ruling might be preserved. (p. 172)
[One would want to ask: why would God transmit a ruling, a law, while not withdrawing it from recitation?]
[Some 200 verses of the Qur'an were believed to be abrogated. Jalaludin estimates that it is between 5 and 500. Muslims, however, have no agreement on which are the mansukh and which are the nasikh.] Other verses had been withdrawn in respect of both their wording and ruling. An example in the Tradition is Anas' hadith on the Qur'an's reference to the Bi'r Ma`una martyrs. Further cases include Ubayy's remark that Ahzab had originally been as long as Baqara; Hudaifa's remark, 'They don't recite a quarter of al Bara'a today.' These are all sound hadiths and represent instances of naskh al hukm wa al tilawa and naskh al tilawa duna al hukm. Both are types of Qur'an omission from the mushaf. (p. 130)
Bukhari preserves a hadith to the effect that some men waited upon ibn `Abbas, cousin and supporter of `Ali, and later upon Muhammad b. al Hanafiya, son of `Ali and himself a figurehead in the Si'a's claim on behalf of the Holy Family. To the question whether Muhammad had 'left anything' each of these notables in turn replied that Muhammad had left no more than may be found between the 'two covers'. ibn Hajar comments, 'Muhammad did not omit from the mushaf any part of the Qur'an which ought to be publicly recited [at prayer].' (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 53) That implies that there is Qur'an material missing from the mushaf that need not be publicly recited. For ibn Hajar, the hadith denies the existence outside the mushaf of verses which ought to have been included. That implies that there are verses that ought not to be included in the mushaf. He finds this reading of the tafsir of the hadith confirmed by other reports from Companions mentioning Qur'an materials revealed, but subsequently withdrawn in respect of their wording. That had not prejudiced the continuing legal validity of their rulings. The wording had simply been omitted from the mushaf. An instance of the kind is `Umar's report on the omission of the stoning verse. (p. 130)
ibn Qutaiba resorts to logic. It is quite feasible that a ruling be revealed in the Qur'an, yet the wording subsequently be annulled, leaving the ruling alone valid. `Umar report this to have been the case in the instance of the stoning verse, and others have reported the like in connection with other revelations that had been part of the Qur'an before the texts were brought together. If it is possible to abandon the ruling yet retain the wording in the mushaf, it is equally possible to abandon the wording, yet retain the ruling in the Fiqh. (p. 96, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim, ibn Qutaiba, "K. ta'wil mukhtalif al Hadith", Cairo, 1966/1386, pp. 310-15)
Similar is the tone of Zarkasi (A.H. 794) who reports that al Wahidi had given as an example of the abrogation of something whose wording was still in the mushaf by something whose wording had not been endorsed for inclusion in the mushaf, the abrogation of flogging by stoning, in the case of the non-virgin. Stoning is not publicly recited today, although it had been in the days of the Prophet. The ruling has remained valid, but the wording has not. Similarly, certain wordings have been endorsed as part of the mushaf, whose rulings have ceased to be valid. If there can be a Qur'an revelation which is recited, but not practised, there can be a Qur'an regulation which is practised but not recited. (p. 96, Badr al Din Muhammad b. `Abdullah al Zarkasi, "K. al Burhan fi `ulum al Qur'an, 4 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1957/1376, vol. 2, p. 41)
Zarkasi:
The naskh [sic] of the wording and recital occurred by means of God's causing them to forget it. He withdrew it from their memories, while commanding them to neglect its public recital and its recording in the mushaf. With the passage of time, it would quite disappear like the rest of God's revealed Books which He mentions in the Qur'an, but nothing of which is known today. This can have happened either during the Prophet's life so that, when he died, the forgotten material was no longer being recited as part of the Qur'an; or it might have happened after the death of the Prophet. It would still be extant in writing, but God would cause them to forget it. He would then remove it from their memories. But, of course, the naskh of any part of the revelation after the death of the Prophet is not possible. (p. 97-98, Badr al Din Muhammad b. `Abdullah al Zarkasi, "K. al Burhan fi `ulum al Qur'an, 4 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1957/1376, vol. 1, p. 235)
The wording of al saikh wa al saikha has been withdrawn, but the ruling is still valid in Law. (p. 106, Abu `Abdullah al Asfara'ini, "K. al nasikh wa al mansukh", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur majami` no. 297, f. 102)
The Sunna - the Prophet's stoning the adulterer - has not been established by tawatur, but only by isolate reports. The most one might say is that the community unanimously accepts stoning and since ijma` cannot abrogate a source (it merely serves to indicate the existence of a mutawatir source that did abrogate), to identify that source as having been a mutawatir sunna which, however, has not reached us, is no more satisfactory than to attribute the naskh in question to a mutawatir verse which also has failed to reach us owing to the withdrawal of the wording. (p. 108, Abu al Hasan Saif al Din `Ali b. abi `Ali b. Muhammad al Amidi, "K. ah Ihkam fi usul al Ahkam", 4 vols., Cairo, 1332, vol. 2, p. 185)
It cannot be argued, merely because `Umar said in his hadith, 'But I fear that men will accuse me of adding to the Qur'an something that does not belong to it I would have recorded al saikh wa al saikha', or that, if recorded, it would have been written on the margin of the mushaf, that that indicates that it was not really part of the Qur'an. For we hold that it could have been a verse whose wording alone was withdrawn. Nor can it be held that ayat al saikh wa al saikha was never established by tawatur but depended solely upon `Umar's word; that the abrogation of the mutawatir [Q 24.2] by the isolate is never admitted by the scholars; and that, since stoning is documented solely in isolate reports, one is inevitably forced to the conclusion that stoning is derived from the consensus of the scholars. But the ijma` cannot serve in its own right to abrogate a source -- it merely indicates the fact of abrogation, and thus signals their awareness of the existence of a mutawatir source that did the abrogating. Thus, to postulate on this topic the existence at one time of a mutawatir sunna, which has not however reached us, is in no way preferable to postulating the existence at one time of a Qur'an verse which has not reached us, owing to the withdrawal of the wording. (p. 108-109, Muhammad b. `Ali al Hasimi al `Alawi al Taba'taba'i, "Mafatih al wusul fi usul fiqh al Si`a", MS Alexandria, Baladiya, no. 1031, bab naskh al kitab bi al sunna)
In Tahawi's view, the frequency of variants was the result of the first generation's inexperience of verbatim oral transmission of texts together with their ignorance of the art of writing. (p. 39, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 47)
Sarakhsi is prepared to concede that parts of the Qur'an may have eluded the recording procedures during the Prophet's life, on account of the Qur'an verses: ma nansakh min aya wa nunsi ha; 'If We wished, We could make away with what We have revealed to you'; 'We shall teach you to recite it and you will not forget -- except what God wills.' He will, however, have none of the suggestion that this is conceivable after the Prophet's death. The possibility, he claims is not admitted by Muslims. (Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al Sarakhsi, "Usul", 2 vols., Haiderabad, 1372, vol 2, p. 78)
The reports, allegedly from Abu Bakr, Anas, Ubayy and others, indicating the loss or the forgetting of this or that aya which 'they used to recite in the lifetime of the Prophet', he regards as circulated by the enemies of Islam bent upon its destruction.
Among such 'lies' he includes `Umar's report to the effect that the stoning verse had once been part of the Qur'an, and he cannot explain how such a great scholar as Safi`i should be represented by a similar view on the question of the suckling 'verses' as that alleged in the `A'isa report, which, incidentally, he words, 'and that was part of what was recited in the Qur'an following the death of the Prophet.' (p. 99)
