Post by Abu Idris on Jul 22, 2015 15:29:54 GMT
Below is an essay on the compilation of the Qur'an (Jamʿ al-Qurʾān) written by a friend who wishes to remain anonymous. With the author's permission, I made a few minor tweaks to the essay and decided it to upload it online.
To read/download the article in PDF format, click here; and to read in flowing text, continue reading below (some Arabic supplications have been removed in this version for the readers' ease):
Question:
Answer:
The history of the Qurʾānic text has been the cause of great debate in recent times. Although it is believed by Muslims that the Qurʾānic text has been preserved down to each letter, they did not have any real opposition to scrutinise this fact. The first claims of doubt on the preservation came from some Shia Muslims. They believed that certain individuals had taken out portions and verses from the Qurʾān to hide the virtues of the family of the Prophet ﷺ and more specifically the entitlement of ʿAlī Ibn Abī Ṭālib to become Khalīfah.[1] The main culprits must then have been those compiling the text and standardising it, who were none other than Abu Bakr, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān. The vast majority of Muslim scholars considered this view as heresy and one that takes a person out the fold of Islām.
This argument was responded via two angles: 1) the uprightness of the Companions, hence not making it possible for them to carry out this huge conspiracy, and 2) sifting through the so called narrations supporting this view and proving them to be forgeries.
This was not too much of a difficult task as the opponents believed in the truth of Islām and accepted (to an extent) the Isnād[2] (chain) system. So, to prove that the companions of the Prophet ﷺ were upright, a scholar could produce the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ giving witness to their uprightness and their status before Allāh ﷻ. This may be convincing for the Muslim, but a person who does not believe in his Prophethood will require some more evidence.
Therefore, when interest was given to Islāmic scholarship from the West, non-Muslim scholars came with many theories as how to understand and utilise the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth. These opinions ranged from a total rejection of both, to accepting parts of the two which seemed rationally or historically ‘plausible’.[3] This latter approach was heavily based on Matn[4] (textual) analysis, contrary to the traditional Sunnī approach, which was mainly based upon Sanad analysis.[5]
A relevant example is the compiling of the Qurʾān during the Khilāfah of Abū Bakr. This is mentioned in various Sunnī Ḥadīth canons, including the ‘most authentic book after the Qurʾān’ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Thus, from a Sanad perspective, there is no doubt in this incident because of its mass transmission from authoritative sources. However, certain Western scholars cast doubt on this compilation by stating that this initial compilation was forged, to either make the compilation of the Qurʾān more early to the time of the Prophet ﷺ (hence, making it more reliable), or to attribute the initial compilation to Abū Bakr because ʿUthmān was not liked.[6]
The glaring problem with the Matn approach is that it is very speculative and opens the doors to bizarre theories and ideas, whereas the Sanad approach is much more scientific, but has its shortcomings. This is why the classical traditionalists have stated: if there is a narration which has a sound Sanad, but the Matn is extremely odd or contradicts something that is more certain, then the narration is to be rejected. This makes the traditionalist approach much more reasonable and scientific.
Despite the Western Matn approach, Ibn Warraq (who takes the most extreme view and claims that the Qurʾān was a flexible liquid text with no real form for some 200 years) concedes that most modern scholars[7] accept that the Qurʾān was compiled by ʿUthmān between the years 650-656AC.[8]
With that in mind, the compilation of ʿUthmān took place only 18 years after the demise of the Prophet ﷺ. This would mean that many senior companions who had heard the Qurʾān directly from the Prophet ﷺ were still alive, and also narrows down the possibility of a great conspiracy, as we would then have to believe that many of these companions, who had sacrificed so much for their faith, would agree to forge or allow forgery in the book of Allāh ﷻ, despite their caution when it came to the words of the Prophet ﷺ. It is rather convincing to accept the accuracy of ʿUthmān’s compilation and would refute those who claimed that the compilation of Abū Bakr was forged, as it does not seem necessary to go through all that effort for something which is convincing to begin with.
However, to really answer the question, we need to look at the details of to what extent the Qurʾān was compiled at the time of the Prophet ﷺ, then the first official compilation, and see what exactly Abū Bakr ordered for, and then what was the reason for ʿUthmān’s compilation when Abū Bakr had supposedly done the job?
The Time of the Prophet ﷺ
We know that the Prophet ﷺ allowed and, at times, ordered the writing of the Qurʾān during his lifetime. This is evident from the story for ʿUmar’s (the 2nd Khalīfah) conversion to Islām, where he initially sets to go and kill the Prophet ﷺ, but is intercepted by Nu’aym, who tells him that his sister and brother-in-law have accepted Islām. The incident then mentions:
ʿUmar hurried to his brother-in-law’s house, where Khabbāb was reciting Sūrah TāHā to them from a parchment.’[9]
This incident took place in Makkah, and despite the oppression the Muslims faced, the Qurʾān was still being written down. This transcribing naturally increased and systemised when the Muslims attained authority and order in Madīnah. This gave rise to the Kuttāb (the transcribers of the revelation). Al-Azami has counted the number of Kuttāb to be 48, with some being more famous in transcribing than others.[10] At the demise of the Prophet ﷺ, we learn that companions had parts of the Qurʾān written, like ʿĀʾishah (the wife of the Prophet ﷺ) had transcripts of parts of the Qurʾān.[11]
Although the text was being written, it was not compiled in a systemised form. However, this did not pose too much of an issue for the Muslims, as the Oral tradition was very strong, and the Qurʾān was seen as secure in the hearts of the Believers. We find that many companions had memorized the whole Qurʾān in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, in one particular narration it is mentioned:
‘Four individuals had gathered (i.e. memorized) the Qurʾān in the time of the Prophet; they were all from the Anṣār: Ubayy, Muʿādh Ibn Jabal, Abū Zayd and Zayd Ibn Thābit.’[12]
This is also proven from the very tradition where Abū Bakr initiates the compilation of the Qurʾān, where Zayd Ibn Thābit relies on the Oral tradition. ʿUmar worried that the Qurʾān may get lost, despite it having been written on various parchments, due to the deaths of many of the Qurrāʾ in the Battle of Yamamah. So, Abu Bakr sent for Zayd Ibn Thabit as he knew him to be one of the scribes and well known for piety. Zayd reluctantly took up the task and began the search for parchments using the help of what had been memorized in the heart of the believers.[13]
Many Western scholars have cast doubt on the reliability of this incident, both from the angle of its Matn and its Isnād. The most common critique is that not many Qurrāʾ died at the Battle of Yamāmah, which casts doubt that ʿUmar would have called for a compilation. However, when looking at the history books, many historians have listed numerous early companions from amongst the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār who were martyred. Naturally, these early companions consisted of Qurrāʾ, as they had witnessed the revelation. Khalīfah Ibn Khayyāṭ (d. 240AH) named 24 Muhājirūn (9 amongst whom witnessed Badr) and 34 Anṣār.[14] Others have given the death toll as much more, like Balāḍūrī (d. 279AH), who says the different figures vary from between 700 to 1700.[15] Al-Qurṭubī (d. 671AH) mentioned 700 Qurrāʾ were martyred; Ibn Kathīr (d. 774AH) mentioned 500 Qurrāʾ; and Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852AH) mentioned something similar.[16]
To argue that the names of all these Qurrāʾ are not mentioned is merely an argument from silence. Despite that, we have many historians stating contrary to it. Furthermore, the term ‘Qurrāʾ’ does not necessitate that these individuals had memorized the whole Qurʾān; it can simply mean large portions.
As for the narrations having various variants, they do not affect the overall fact that the Qurʾān was gathered under the order of Abū Bakr. These variants can simply be explained as being errors from a narrator, or can be understood in a way that eliminates contradictions. For example, in some narrations, it may be mentioned that Zayd Ibn Thābit collected the Qurʾān from palm trees and from parchments, and others may mention that Zayd used Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb’s Mushaf (Qurʾānic text).[17] This can be easily explained by the possibly that Zayd used both.
As from the perspective of the Isnād, those scholars who do not accept the whole system of the Isnād will be out the pale of our discussion, as that will be a study of itself. From a traditionalist Muslim perspective, the narration has come in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī - which naturally means it is authentic. Harald Motzki has shown that from a pure historical analysis of the chains, it can be concluded that this narration can go as far back Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124AH).[18] From Ibn Shihāb to Zayd Ibn Thābit, there is the narrator Ibn Sabbāq (this is from the chain in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī). There are other chains from Ibn Shihāb to Zayd via the means of Khārijah Ibn Zayd, and another which is direct to the companion Anas Ibn Mālik.[19] This latter one drops the intermediary to Anas and is labelled as Munqaṭiʿ or Mursal (both mean a gap in the chain, while the latter is generally when the companion is dropped).
The question then arises: ‘why is such a major event related from only two or three individuals up till the time of Ibn Shihāb?’ It is possible that due to ʿUthmān’s recension, Abū Bakr’s compilation lost its importance, but this seems a bit far-fetched. It seems that to respond to this problem, the most just response would be that what Abū Bakr was trying to do was not to produce a single state copy of the Qurʾān; rather, he might have sought a private compilation which can be used in the time of need. This would also explain why the copy was passed onto Ḥafṣah[20] by ʿUmar, instead of the Khalīfah, ʿUthmān. It also explains the reason this compilation was not narrated by many individuals.
Majority of the scholars have accepted that the full Qurʾān was not compiled by the Prophet ﷺ in a form of a text,[21] but the compilation of Abū Bakr suggests that the full Qurʾān was compiled during his Khilāfah. This is supported by the fact that the compiler, Zayd Ibn Thābit, had memorized the whole Qurʾān.[22] So it can be assumed that he would have compiled what he had memorized. This then proves that the Qurʾān was fully compiled before the era of ʿUthmān. A further problem is still left unanswered: that is, if the Qurʾān was compiled before the era of ʿUthmān, what was the reason for ʿUthmān’s compilation? To understand this, we must first analyse the nature of the Qurʾān.
The Qurʾān was revealed in seven Aḥruf. This is established from the Prophet ﷺ in various aḥādīth found in numerous books which reach the level of Mutawātir.[23] The general definition of Aḥruf would be ‘various ways the verses of the Qurʾān are read’.[24] It is understood that these Aḥruf were revealed for the ease of the various Arabic dialects. An example of these Aḥruf is when ʿUmar heard Hishām Ibn Ḥakīm reciting the Qurʾān based on another dialect and was angered, thinking that Hishām had changed the Qurʾān, only to learn from the Prophet ﷺ that it was an acceptable dialect.[25] This indicates to the fact that the changes were quite considerable. Many scholars have also mentioned that the differences were sometimes substitute words.[26] Therefore, it was not surprising that soon after the demise of the Prophet ﷺ, as the Islāmic empire was rapidly expanding, the differences emerged. This was the very cause which resulted in ʿUthmān wanting to gather the Qurʾān. The famous companion, Ḥudhayfah Ibn al-Yamān, complained to ʿUthmān because of the confusion that had arose due to the different forms of recitation being transmitted.[27]
This then shows that the compilation done under the order of Abū Bakr was as a protection of the text of the Qurʾān (including all the Aḥruf), and the compilation under the order of ʿUthmān was to restrict the various dialect under a skeleton text, which meant certain readings would be left, while others are still possible to read.[28]
We also learn from the very incident of ʿUthmān’s ordering of gathering the Qurʾān that he used the copy which was in the possession of Ḥafṣah, and that the chief compiler was, again, Zayd Ibn Thābit.[29] This supports the point that the Qurʾān was already compiled as a full text or at least a large portion of it and that the Muṣḥaf of Ḥafṣah was known to the Khalīfah, ʿUthmān. This latter point is supporting evidence to the reality of Abū Bakr’s compilation, which many Western scholars have doubted.
In conclusion, we have outlined in the above that the compilation of ʿUthmān is a fact accepted by the vast majority of scholars, with the exception of a small group. We have shown writing the scripture was something acted upon from the very early days of Islām, which systemized in the Madanī period. The compilation under the guide of Abū Bakr took place - an incident which has been mentioned in the most authoritative Sunnī Ḥadīth book. The main arguments to cast doubt on the incident have been shown to be mere speculation. This compilation was headed by Zayd, who had memorized the Qurʾān, so it is implausible to assume he had failed to compile the complete Qurʾān. As for the compilation of ʿUthmān, it was for a different purpose; and ʿUthmān using the Muṣḥaf of Ḥafṣah further supports our conclusion.
[1] See Gibril Fouad Haddad ‘Encyclopaedia of Hadith Forgeries’, 1st edition, Beacon Books, 2013, p. 33. He quotes from the Shia Ḥadīth collection ‘al-Kāfī’ where the 6th Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, is claimed to have said that the original Qurʾān included somewhat 16,000 verses! To be fair, many Shia scholars have condemned these narrations as being fabrications and have accepted immaculate preservation of the Qurʾān, Ibid, p. 35.
[2] This refers to chain of narrators from the one narrating the incident back to the original authority.
[3] See for the varying Orientalists views of the Isnād, M. Mustafa al-Azami ‘Studies in Early Hadith Literature’, 1st edition, Lahore: Suhail Academy, 2001 p.213-215.
[4] This refers to the actual wording of the statement/incident at the end of the Isnād.
[5] See for further details and the reason for this, Dr Jonathan A.C. Brown ‘How We Know Early Ḥadīth Critics Did Matn Criticism and Why It’s so Hard to Find’ Islāmic Law and Society 15 (2008) 143-184.
[6] Ibn Warraq ‘The Origins of the Koran: Classic essays on Islām’s holy book’, New York: Prometheus Books, p. 11.
[7] Modern Scholars refers to the Western scholarship.
[8] Ibn Warraq ‘The Origins of the Koran’, p. 12. Ibn Warraq himself follows Wansborough in rejecting that the Qurʾān was compiled by ʿUthmān.
[9] M. Mustafa al-Azami ‘The History of The Qurʾānic Text: from Revelation to Compilation’, 1st edition, Leicester: UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p. 67. He narrates the incident from Sirah of Ibn Hishām (emphasis mine).
[10] M. Mustafa al-Azami ‘Kuttāb al-Nabī’, 2nd edition, Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1978, p. 113-115.
[11] Fred M. Donner ‘The Historical Context’, as part of ‘The Cambridge Companion of the Qurʾān’, Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 31.
[12] Al-Bukhārī (3810) and Muslim (2465).
[13] Al-Bukhārī (4701), al-Tirmidhī (3103) and various other places.
[14] Shehzad Saleem ‘Collection of the Qurʾān: A Critical and Historical Study of Al-Farāhī’s View’, PhD submitted in the University of Wales Lampeter, 2010, p. 80.
[15] Ibid, p. 80.
[16] Ibid, p. 80.
[17] Ibid, p. 86.
[18] Harald Motzki ‘The Collection of the Qurʾān: A Reconsiderations of Western Views in Light of Recent Methodological Developments’, Der Islam 78 (2001), p. 26.
[19] Ibid, p. 24-25.
[20] Al-Bukhārī (4701).
[21] Claude Gilliot ‘Creation of a Fixed Text’, as part of ‘The Cambridge Companion of the Qurʾān’, Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 44.
[22] Narration already quoted above, Al-Bukhārī (3810) and Muslim (2465).
[23] Yasir Qadhi ‘An introduction into the Sciences of the Qur’aan’, 1st edition, Birmingham: Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 173.
[24] Ibid, p. 172.
[25] Ibid, p. 173 quoted from Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
[26] Ibid, p. 178.
[27] Al-Bukhārī (3315).
[28] ʿAbdullāh Ibn Yūsuf al-Judayʿ in his ‘Al-Muqaddimāt al-Asāsiyyah fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān’ 1st edtion, Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Rayān, 2001, p. 100-101.
[29] Al-Bukhārī (3315).
To read/download the article in PDF format, click here; and to read in flowing text, continue reading below (some Arabic supplications have been removed in this version for the readers' ease):
Compilation of the Qurʾan in Text Form
Question:
‘The Qurʾān was never put together as a complete text until the time of the fourth Khalīfah, ʿUthmān.’ How accurate is this assessment of the history of the collection of the Qurʾānic text?
The history of the Qurʾānic text has been the cause of great debate in recent times. Although it is believed by Muslims that the Qurʾānic text has been preserved down to each letter, they did not have any real opposition to scrutinise this fact. The first claims of doubt on the preservation came from some Shia Muslims. They believed that certain individuals had taken out portions and verses from the Qurʾān to hide the virtues of the family of the Prophet ﷺ and more specifically the entitlement of ʿAlī Ibn Abī Ṭālib to become Khalīfah.[1] The main culprits must then have been those compiling the text and standardising it, who were none other than Abu Bakr, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān. The vast majority of Muslim scholars considered this view as heresy and one that takes a person out the fold of Islām.
This argument was responded via two angles: 1) the uprightness of the Companions, hence not making it possible for them to carry out this huge conspiracy, and 2) sifting through the so called narrations supporting this view and proving them to be forgeries.
This was not too much of a difficult task as the opponents believed in the truth of Islām and accepted (to an extent) the Isnād[2] (chain) system. So, to prove that the companions of the Prophet ﷺ were upright, a scholar could produce the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ giving witness to their uprightness and their status before Allāh ﷻ. This may be convincing for the Muslim, but a person who does not believe in his Prophethood will require some more evidence.
Therefore, when interest was given to Islāmic scholarship from the West, non-Muslim scholars came with many theories as how to understand and utilise the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth. These opinions ranged from a total rejection of both, to accepting parts of the two which seemed rationally or historically ‘plausible’.[3] This latter approach was heavily based on Matn[4] (textual) analysis, contrary to the traditional Sunnī approach, which was mainly based upon Sanad analysis.[5]
A relevant example is the compiling of the Qurʾān during the Khilāfah of Abū Bakr. This is mentioned in various Sunnī Ḥadīth canons, including the ‘most authentic book after the Qurʾān’ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Thus, from a Sanad perspective, there is no doubt in this incident because of its mass transmission from authoritative sources. However, certain Western scholars cast doubt on this compilation by stating that this initial compilation was forged, to either make the compilation of the Qurʾān more early to the time of the Prophet ﷺ (hence, making it more reliable), or to attribute the initial compilation to Abū Bakr because ʿUthmān was not liked.[6]
The glaring problem with the Matn approach is that it is very speculative and opens the doors to bizarre theories and ideas, whereas the Sanad approach is much more scientific, but has its shortcomings. This is why the classical traditionalists have stated: if there is a narration which has a sound Sanad, but the Matn is extremely odd or contradicts something that is more certain, then the narration is to be rejected. This makes the traditionalist approach much more reasonable and scientific.
Despite the Western Matn approach, Ibn Warraq (who takes the most extreme view and claims that the Qurʾān was a flexible liquid text with no real form for some 200 years) concedes that most modern scholars[7] accept that the Qurʾān was compiled by ʿUthmān between the years 650-656AC.[8]
With that in mind, the compilation of ʿUthmān took place only 18 years after the demise of the Prophet ﷺ. This would mean that many senior companions who had heard the Qurʾān directly from the Prophet ﷺ were still alive, and also narrows down the possibility of a great conspiracy, as we would then have to believe that many of these companions, who had sacrificed so much for their faith, would agree to forge or allow forgery in the book of Allāh ﷻ, despite their caution when it came to the words of the Prophet ﷺ. It is rather convincing to accept the accuracy of ʿUthmān’s compilation and would refute those who claimed that the compilation of Abū Bakr was forged, as it does not seem necessary to go through all that effort for something which is convincing to begin with.
However, to really answer the question, we need to look at the details of to what extent the Qurʾān was compiled at the time of the Prophet ﷺ, then the first official compilation, and see what exactly Abū Bakr ordered for, and then what was the reason for ʿUthmān’s compilation when Abū Bakr had supposedly done the job?
The Time of the Prophet ﷺ
We know that the Prophet ﷺ allowed and, at times, ordered the writing of the Qurʾān during his lifetime. This is evident from the story for ʿUmar’s (the 2nd Khalīfah) conversion to Islām, where he initially sets to go and kill the Prophet ﷺ, but is intercepted by Nu’aym, who tells him that his sister and brother-in-law have accepted Islām. The incident then mentions:
ʿUmar hurried to his brother-in-law’s house, where Khabbāb was reciting Sūrah TāHā to them from a parchment.’[9]
This incident took place in Makkah, and despite the oppression the Muslims faced, the Qurʾān was still being written down. This transcribing naturally increased and systemised when the Muslims attained authority and order in Madīnah. This gave rise to the Kuttāb (the transcribers of the revelation). Al-Azami has counted the number of Kuttāb to be 48, with some being more famous in transcribing than others.[10] At the demise of the Prophet ﷺ, we learn that companions had parts of the Qurʾān written, like ʿĀʾishah (the wife of the Prophet ﷺ) had transcripts of parts of the Qurʾān.[11]
Although the text was being written, it was not compiled in a systemised form. However, this did not pose too much of an issue for the Muslims, as the Oral tradition was very strong, and the Qurʾān was seen as secure in the hearts of the Believers. We find that many companions had memorized the whole Qurʾān in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, in one particular narration it is mentioned:
‘Four individuals had gathered (i.e. memorized) the Qurʾān in the time of the Prophet; they were all from the Anṣār: Ubayy, Muʿādh Ibn Jabal, Abū Zayd and Zayd Ibn Thābit.’[12]
This is also proven from the very tradition where Abū Bakr initiates the compilation of the Qurʾān, where Zayd Ibn Thābit relies on the Oral tradition. ʿUmar worried that the Qurʾān may get lost, despite it having been written on various parchments, due to the deaths of many of the Qurrāʾ in the Battle of Yamamah. So, Abu Bakr sent for Zayd Ibn Thabit as he knew him to be one of the scribes and well known for piety. Zayd reluctantly took up the task and began the search for parchments using the help of what had been memorized in the heart of the believers.[13]
Many Western scholars have cast doubt on the reliability of this incident, both from the angle of its Matn and its Isnād. The most common critique is that not many Qurrāʾ died at the Battle of Yamāmah, which casts doubt that ʿUmar would have called for a compilation. However, when looking at the history books, many historians have listed numerous early companions from amongst the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār who were martyred. Naturally, these early companions consisted of Qurrāʾ, as they had witnessed the revelation. Khalīfah Ibn Khayyāṭ (d. 240AH) named 24 Muhājirūn (9 amongst whom witnessed Badr) and 34 Anṣār.[14] Others have given the death toll as much more, like Balāḍūrī (d. 279AH), who says the different figures vary from between 700 to 1700.[15] Al-Qurṭubī (d. 671AH) mentioned 700 Qurrāʾ were martyred; Ibn Kathīr (d. 774AH) mentioned 500 Qurrāʾ; and Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852AH) mentioned something similar.[16]
To argue that the names of all these Qurrāʾ are not mentioned is merely an argument from silence. Despite that, we have many historians stating contrary to it. Furthermore, the term ‘Qurrāʾ’ does not necessitate that these individuals had memorized the whole Qurʾān; it can simply mean large portions.
As for the narrations having various variants, they do not affect the overall fact that the Qurʾān was gathered under the order of Abū Bakr. These variants can simply be explained as being errors from a narrator, or can be understood in a way that eliminates contradictions. For example, in some narrations, it may be mentioned that Zayd Ibn Thābit collected the Qurʾān from palm trees and from parchments, and others may mention that Zayd used Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb’s Mushaf (Qurʾānic text).[17] This can be easily explained by the possibly that Zayd used both.
As from the perspective of the Isnād, those scholars who do not accept the whole system of the Isnād will be out the pale of our discussion, as that will be a study of itself. From a traditionalist Muslim perspective, the narration has come in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī - which naturally means it is authentic. Harald Motzki has shown that from a pure historical analysis of the chains, it can be concluded that this narration can go as far back Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124AH).[18] From Ibn Shihāb to Zayd Ibn Thābit, there is the narrator Ibn Sabbāq (this is from the chain in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī). There are other chains from Ibn Shihāb to Zayd via the means of Khārijah Ibn Zayd, and another which is direct to the companion Anas Ibn Mālik.[19] This latter one drops the intermediary to Anas and is labelled as Munqaṭiʿ or Mursal (both mean a gap in the chain, while the latter is generally when the companion is dropped).
The question then arises: ‘why is such a major event related from only two or three individuals up till the time of Ibn Shihāb?’ It is possible that due to ʿUthmān’s recension, Abū Bakr’s compilation lost its importance, but this seems a bit far-fetched. It seems that to respond to this problem, the most just response would be that what Abū Bakr was trying to do was not to produce a single state copy of the Qurʾān; rather, he might have sought a private compilation which can be used in the time of need. This would also explain why the copy was passed onto Ḥafṣah[20] by ʿUmar, instead of the Khalīfah, ʿUthmān. It also explains the reason this compilation was not narrated by many individuals.
Majority of the scholars have accepted that the full Qurʾān was not compiled by the Prophet ﷺ in a form of a text,[21] but the compilation of Abū Bakr suggests that the full Qurʾān was compiled during his Khilāfah. This is supported by the fact that the compiler, Zayd Ibn Thābit, had memorized the whole Qurʾān.[22] So it can be assumed that he would have compiled what he had memorized. This then proves that the Qurʾān was fully compiled before the era of ʿUthmān. A further problem is still left unanswered: that is, if the Qurʾān was compiled before the era of ʿUthmān, what was the reason for ʿUthmān’s compilation? To understand this, we must first analyse the nature of the Qurʾān.
The Qurʾān was revealed in seven Aḥruf. This is established from the Prophet ﷺ in various aḥādīth found in numerous books which reach the level of Mutawātir.[23] The general definition of Aḥruf would be ‘various ways the verses of the Qurʾān are read’.[24] It is understood that these Aḥruf were revealed for the ease of the various Arabic dialects. An example of these Aḥruf is when ʿUmar heard Hishām Ibn Ḥakīm reciting the Qurʾān based on another dialect and was angered, thinking that Hishām had changed the Qurʾān, only to learn from the Prophet ﷺ that it was an acceptable dialect.[25] This indicates to the fact that the changes were quite considerable. Many scholars have also mentioned that the differences were sometimes substitute words.[26] Therefore, it was not surprising that soon after the demise of the Prophet ﷺ, as the Islāmic empire was rapidly expanding, the differences emerged. This was the very cause which resulted in ʿUthmān wanting to gather the Qurʾān. The famous companion, Ḥudhayfah Ibn al-Yamān, complained to ʿUthmān because of the confusion that had arose due to the different forms of recitation being transmitted.[27]
This then shows that the compilation done under the order of Abū Bakr was as a protection of the text of the Qurʾān (including all the Aḥruf), and the compilation under the order of ʿUthmān was to restrict the various dialect under a skeleton text, which meant certain readings would be left, while others are still possible to read.[28]
We also learn from the very incident of ʿUthmān’s ordering of gathering the Qurʾān that he used the copy which was in the possession of Ḥafṣah, and that the chief compiler was, again, Zayd Ibn Thābit.[29] This supports the point that the Qurʾān was already compiled as a full text or at least a large portion of it and that the Muṣḥaf of Ḥafṣah was known to the Khalīfah, ʿUthmān. This latter point is supporting evidence to the reality of Abū Bakr’s compilation, which many Western scholars have doubted.
In conclusion, we have outlined in the above that the compilation of ʿUthmān is a fact accepted by the vast majority of scholars, with the exception of a small group. We have shown writing the scripture was something acted upon from the very early days of Islām, which systemized in the Madanī period. The compilation under the guide of Abū Bakr took place - an incident which has been mentioned in the most authoritative Sunnī Ḥadīth book. The main arguments to cast doubt on the incident have been shown to be mere speculation. This compilation was headed by Zayd, who had memorized the Qurʾān, so it is implausible to assume he had failed to compile the complete Qurʾān. As for the compilation of ʿUthmān, it was for a different purpose; and ʿUthmān using the Muṣḥaf of Ḥafṣah further supports our conclusion.
[1] See Gibril Fouad Haddad ‘Encyclopaedia of Hadith Forgeries’, 1st edition, Beacon Books, 2013, p. 33. He quotes from the Shia Ḥadīth collection ‘al-Kāfī’ where the 6th Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, is claimed to have said that the original Qurʾān included somewhat 16,000 verses! To be fair, many Shia scholars have condemned these narrations as being fabrications and have accepted immaculate preservation of the Qurʾān, Ibid, p. 35.
[2] This refers to chain of narrators from the one narrating the incident back to the original authority.
[3] See for the varying Orientalists views of the Isnād, M. Mustafa al-Azami ‘Studies in Early Hadith Literature’, 1st edition, Lahore: Suhail Academy, 2001 p.213-215.
[4] This refers to the actual wording of the statement/incident at the end of the Isnād.
[5] See for further details and the reason for this, Dr Jonathan A.C. Brown ‘How We Know Early Ḥadīth Critics Did Matn Criticism and Why It’s so Hard to Find’ Islāmic Law and Society 15 (2008) 143-184.
[6] Ibn Warraq ‘The Origins of the Koran: Classic essays on Islām’s holy book’, New York: Prometheus Books, p. 11.
[7] Modern Scholars refers to the Western scholarship.
[8] Ibn Warraq ‘The Origins of the Koran’, p. 12. Ibn Warraq himself follows Wansborough in rejecting that the Qurʾān was compiled by ʿUthmān.
[9] M. Mustafa al-Azami ‘The History of The Qurʾānic Text: from Revelation to Compilation’, 1st edition, Leicester: UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p. 67. He narrates the incident from Sirah of Ibn Hishām (emphasis mine).
[10] M. Mustafa al-Azami ‘Kuttāb al-Nabī’, 2nd edition, Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1978, p. 113-115.
[11] Fred M. Donner ‘The Historical Context’, as part of ‘The Cambridge Companion of the Qurʾān’, Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 31.
[12] Al-Bukhārī (3810) and Muslim (2465).
[13] Al-Bukhārī (4701), al-Tirmidhī (3103) and various other places.
[14] Shehzad Saleem ‘Collection of the Qurʾān: A Critical and Historical Study of Al-Farāhī’s View’, PhD submitted in the University of Wales Lampeter, 2010, p. 80.
[15] Ibid, p. 80.
[16] Ibid, p. 80.
[17] Ibid, p. 86.
[18] Harald Motzki ‘The Collection of the Qurʾān: A Reconsiderations of Western Views in Light of Recent Methodological Developments’, Der Islam 78 (2001), p. 26.
[19] Ibid, p. 24-25.
[20] Al-Bukhārī (4701).
[21] Claude Gilliot ‘Creation of a Fixed Text’, as part of ‘The Cambridge Companion of the Qurʾān’, Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 44.
[22] Narration already quoted above, Al-Bukhārī (3810) and Muslim (2465).
[23] Yasir Qadhi ‘An introduction into the Sciences of the Qur’aan’, 1st edition, Birmingham: Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 173.
[24] Ibid, p. 172.
[25] Ibid, p. 173 quoted from Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
[26] Ibid, p. 178.
[27] Al-Bukhārī (3315).
[28] ʿAbdullāh Ibn Yūsuf al-Judayʿ in his ‘Al-Muqaddimāt al-Asāsiyyah fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān’ 1st edtion, Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Rayān, 2001, p. 100-101.
[29] Al-Bukhārī (3315).