In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
Every religious scriptures uses degrading terms, mostly in reference to animals, when referring to sinful people. In the case of the Quran and the "Jews into apes" passage, It is to be noted first that this speaks of a special kind of transgression.
The sabbath violation is one of the sins they have been most persistent and constant in committing throughout their history, despite it being one of the few ordinances so important in God's eyes when it was first ordained upon them that transgressing it was punishable by death. This is revealing of their mentality, disregard and disrespect to God which the Quran exposed when it revealed what was truly in their hearts while they were made to swear into the covenant 2:93. They would transgress the Sabbath even in such critical times as when they had just finished rebuilding the Temple that had been destroyed precisely for their misbehavior Neh13:15-22.
That stain particularly in regards to te Sabbath is so great on them, whether in their own books or the Quran, that when Allah speaks of those on whom that ordinance came, ie the Israelites, it calls them 16:124"those who differed about it". It is as if no sooner was it ordained that they already resisted its application. Allah tells those sabbath breakers to "Be despised apes".
Many indicators, both linguistic and textual as attested by some of the earliest authorities even among the taabiun (Mujahid), point to it being a metaphor on how lowly these transgressors among them were made to be in God's eyes, as well as to the rest of the righteous community and those who kept their commandments 7:159,163-166. The tafsir scholar Mujahid, who had studied under Ali ibn Abi Talib and is said to have reviewed his tafsir 10s of times under ibn Abbas, explicitly ascribed to this view. He compared the simile to that made elsewhere in the Quran regarding the spiritually barren, who carry the divine scriptures like donkeys carrying a load of which they dont know the value.
The textual indicators to it being a metaphor are seen from the next verse, 2:66 were it says to those to whom it was said to "Be despised apes", that they have been made an example to their community and posterity. How were these people made into an example to posterity? Physically transforming them into apes would have been witnessed by one generation at most. It would have had no effect on posterity as the verse says. Today and as reported in the HB, any Jew would recognize how many of their ancestors reached the lowest spiritual degradation, which the Sabbath breaking was their main marker and indicator, and were consequently destroyed and humiliated among the pagan nations. That is how the metaphorical expression materialized to posterity and was a well known pattern in their history, to be punished, humiliated and abased lower than animals, for their transgressions
2:65"And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be apes, despised and hated".
The emphasis on humiliation, in addition to the beastly reference, suggests that it is the abstract state of abasement that is meant. The mere physical transformation into apes would have been enough in itself as a humiliation. As the HB states about those who do any type of work on the sabbath
Ex31:14"that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people".
In fact this occurred in the times of the prophet. Allah threatens the Jews who knowingly twist the scriptures and religious knowledge so as to turn the believers away from the straight path, that the same curse will befall them
3:47"as We cursed the sabbath-breakers".
None of them were transformed into animals, but they sure were punished, humiliated, abased and exiled for their enmity towards the prophet of God.
The incident the Quran chose to illustrate their lack of consideration and abuse of the Sabbath is a highly meaningful and appropriate one; the prophet Muhammad is told to question them (a questioning can be done with the object of reminding one of a forgotten occasion) when the Jewish inhabitants of a coastal city would fish on the Sabbath and not on the other days 7:163-6.
They did so out of pure laziness, unconcerned by the spiritual consequences, blinded by their sinful, rebellious hearts, simply because it happened that whenever the Sabbath arrived, the fish were easier to capture
"their fish came to them..appearing on the surface of the water"
but on other days the fish did not readily come in that favorable manner and had therefore to be patiently sought and trapped as normal fishermen do. The incident shows how convenience, not even necessity or hardship, was a good enough reason for them to transgress one of the most basic and sacred ordinance. For comparison, the hadith describe a situation where a traveling group of Muslims among whom some were in a state of ihram (forbidden to hunt, among ither restrictions prior to the pilgrimage) while others werent, refused participating even indirectly in the capture of a prey, despite their hunger
"Once, while I was sitting with the companions of the Prophet at a station on the road to Mecca and Allah's Messenger was stationing ahead of us and all the people were assuming Ihram while I was not. My companion, saw an onager while I was busy Mending my shoes. They did not Inform me of the onager but they wished that I would see it Suddenly I looked and saw the onager Then I headed towards my horse, saddled it and rode, but I forgot to take the lash and the spear. So I said to them my companions), "Give me the lash and the spear." But they said, "No, by Allah we will not help you in any way to hunt it ' I got angry, dismounted, took it the spear and the lash), rode (the horse chased the onager and wounded it Then I brought it when it had dyed. My companions started eating of its (cooked) meat, but they suspected that it might be unlawful to eat of its meat while they were in a state of Ihram Then I proceeded further and I kept one of its forelegs with me. When we met Allah's Apostle we asked him about that. He said, "Have you some of its meat with you?" I gave him that foreleg and he ate the meat till he stripped the bone of its flesh although he was in a state of Ihram".
What is interesting is that there is actually a debate in the Talmud about whether it is permitted to lay out nets before Shabbat in order to catch fish on Shabbat. This shows that there is a historical basis for the discussion or that there was a need to circumvent shabbat in that specific case, which then triggered the debate. The Shammai schools forbids it while the one of Hillel allows it (shabbat 1:7). The latter school of interpretation is regarded as more authorative, making it permissible to lay traps for fish ahead of the Sabbath, thus opening the way for their distortions of the spirit of the Law to suit their needs. Instead of using that occasion, the peculiar behavior of the fish, as a means by which they can put Shabbat above worldly convenience, they actually sunk deeper into sin and defiance. Not only that, they repeated their transgression openly, despite the admonishments of righteous members of the community.
Their spirituality was so degraded that they would turn a deaf ear and rather disobey than miss a trouble-free opportunity. It is important to keep in view that the Quran does not generalize this behavior to the whole community. A closer reading of the verses shows that there were not only 2 but 3 groups; the rebellious, the admonishers, and the ones passively sitting by, with the understanding that a punishment would soon befall the transgressors 7:164. This means that although, prior to the incident many had transgressed the Sabbath, some had successfully passed the trial by reforming themselves and desisting from catching the fish despite the convenient opportunity. But 1 group failed the test and was consequently punished. Also, the fact that a group knew that the Sabbath violators would be divinely punished, before their abasement to the level of despised apes, reinforces what was said earlier concerning the well-known, established pattern in their history, to be punished, humiliated and abased for their transgressions
2:65"And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be apes, despised and hated".
In fact this occurred in the times of the prophet. Allah threatens the Jews who knowingly twist the scriptures and religious knowledge so as to turn the believers away from the straight path, that the same curse will befall them
3:47"as We cursed the sabbath-breakers".
None of them were transformed into animals, but they sure were punished, humiliated, abased and exiled for their enmity towards the prophet of God.
In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"
The prophet Muhammad lived among his people for 40 years before the start of his prophetic mission, without anything from his speech foretelling either fully or partly a knowledge of the information and principles provided within the book
12:3,102,28:44,11:49"These are announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you, you did not know them-- (neither) you nor your people-- before this; therefore be patient; surely the end is for those who guard (against evil).".
The only thing distinguishing him from the majority of his people was his pure conduct and detachment from their ungodly habits
10:16"Say: If Allah had desired (otherwise) I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have taught it to you; indeed I have lived a lifetime among you before it; do you not then understand?".
As stated in 42:52, before his appointment to prophethood, he never had any idea that he was going to receive a Book, or that he should receive one. He was wholly unaware of the heavenly Books and the subjects they treated.
Likewise, although he believed in Allah, intellectually he was not aware of the requirements of the Faith.
In addition, from a strictly materialistic worldview, nothing indicates, neither from his character or the consequences upon himself and his loved ones, that he initiated his mission to satisfy any greed or lust. During the 40 years he lived among them, he was a person whose integrity they never questioned, and whom they considered to be an upright person just like Salih or Lut prior to the beginning of their preaching 11:62,162. Just like Jeremiah was inspired with warnings and glad tidings to his people for 23 years Jer25:3, the Quran was revealed over the span of 23 years. Practically speaking, the idea of a secret teacher following Muhammad for 23 years and in different locations and circumstances where revelation is known to have descended is completely untenable: while hiding with his companions in ravines, in his home with his family, on the battlefield etc. besides fulfilling every function and responsibilities of a statesman, husband, friend, teacher etc without ever being noticed.
Besides the first short revelation which descended upon him as he had secluded himself in a cave to escape his sinful, idolatrous environment which he abhorred, all other revelations came to him openly with many times multiple witnesses present. The prophet was no mystic sitting in hope of being contacted by the divine. He was a righteous monotheist, a hanif among his people who searched for the truth using his inherited knowledge and observation of the nature around him. Many verses allude to his pre-revelational condition with words evoking how he had no expectation whatsoever of coming in contact with the divine realm and being chosen for prophethood.
This teacher of his, from the mass of informants proposed throughout the ages by the critics of Islam, from Waraqa b. Nawfal to ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh and ‘Uthman b. al-Huwayrith, to the anonymous hanif communities or other monotheists such as Zayd ibn Amr, the hermit Bahira, some unnamed foreign slaves knowledgeable in Judeo-Christian oral and written traditions, to Zayd ibn Thabit's crucial role in originating the Quranic text, none of them could have done what is alleged that they did without being noticed, and without eventually coming out against that student or plagiarist who was taking all the credits for himself. So either that teacher was the most stealthy human to ever live, or it was another entity.
Supposing Muhammad's source was living outside the Hijaz, as some modern critics have opined. All historical records available show that Muhammad had made only three trips outside Mecca before his Prophethood: At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Medina. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria. It is highly imaginary to assume that the Quran, a long term revelation that includes interactive passages with its addressees, where revelation answers a specific theological, social, economical etc matter, resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips. It is no less imaginary to assume there was any meaningful contact and religious dialogue between him and anyone, like Bahira, that led to the development of any of the Quran's intricately well knit discourse on any of the Christian themes and figures, conveniently discarding all the historical blunders and improbabilities of both canonical and apocryphal scriptures that allegedly were the subjects of discussion. And which testimonies are there to corroborate the conspiracy claim? Who witnessed the exchange and why did that private teacher equally recognize the prophet hood of Muhammad? Among the reasons why such conspiracy, and other similar false beliefs and revisionist ideas perdure despite the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is that the authors of these theories, and their supporters, find comfort in the feeling that at least a few propositions among many have some shade of truth in them, and that they receive enough approval by a certain public. Developmental psychologists have found that these 2 factors had a great impact on people's sense of self-certainty; the more one is convinced of knowing something, even though he doesnt, the less likely he will be curious enough to explore the topic further, failing to learn how little he actually knows. This way people remain stuck in their belief and thus will keep repeating it.
The Prophet's enemies kept a close watch on him, trying hard to prove him a liar. They could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret encounter. Tribal life in the desert was very open making it very hard to have regular secret meetings without being noticed. That is why the prophet's critics, even as reported in the Quran, would point to various suspects that were living in everyone's plain sight, although they could not prove any of their claims and neither did these individuals ever agree with these calumnies. And yet these intellectually bankrupt individuals of the past and today want to come and argue that the most intricate of human discourses came to be through occasional chatters and hearsay around a camp fire.
The Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Medina more than 13 years after the revelation of the Quran had started. And they certainly werent going on in secret. The objective was to point their moral and spiritual errors as well as warn them of the consequences of their persistence in deviation. He met them as a teacher, not a student. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam, including some of their most learned figures. It should also be noted that the vast majority of verses relating the history of past prophets were revealed in Mecca, before these interactions with the people of the book occured. What insignificant Judeo-Christian community was the prophet interested in appeasing at point, as sometimes suggested by the mischievious critics? His relatives who surrounded him never questioned his truthfulness instead they gave their wealth and lives for his cause, contrary to some previous prophets, such as Jesus who was rejected and treated as a madman by his closest circle. The prophet Ibrahim himself was rejected by his father who almost stoned him 19:46.
His availability, his openness for inquiries and visits was such that towards an advanced stage of the prophetic mission, revelation came down to regulate the manners of those seeking to visit him, including spending in charity at first, as well as announcing themselves prior to entering his private quarters where his wives resided. So, because that proposition of him having secret meetings was weak, his enemies instead resorted to character assassination. They resorted to all sorts of calumnies the likes of which previous prophets were victims of, including being a liar, sorcerer or a madman demon possessed.
The Quran would then plainly challenge them; if it is something man made then, with all their resources, including the riches they tried bribing the prophet himself with, the availability of masters of eloquence the likes of which the Arab world has rarely seen since then, in addition to all supposed teachers of his, they should be able to respond to the challenge without much difficulty. But the rest is history. To this day, the enemies of Islam have been conjecturing just as they had always been, trying hard to uncover the sources of the Quran. They certainly did and will continue pointing to a plethora of potential human, textual, traditional candidates. On the surface, these sources seem believable but immediately crumble when one compares them on a macro- as well as micro level to the Quran, let alone if one considers other historical facts the likes of which have been pointed to earlier.
What is undeniable, as is evidenced by the recent trend of studies on the Quranic engagement with previous traditions, is that the Quran shows a very high degree of knowledge of Judaeo-Christian tradition, written and oral, canonized or not, factual or folklore, whether restricted to the religious elite or common among the layman. Such intricate awareness is in fact among the fundamental arguments the Quran uses in support of the divine inspiration of the messenger, the gentile, unschooled Arab, a man highly unlikely to have possessed such vast array of information, let alone able to assemble the details in the form of eloquent speech, whose life whether before or after his prophethood, was known and scrutinized from every angle, day and night, by his friends, family and foes.
It is interesting however that we do read in the ahadith of a man appearing out of nowhere on several occasions in the life of the prophet and the community. Including to teach the prophet and his followers, publicly, the daily prayers, as well as to command him and the Muslim soldiers, to besiege the treacherous tribe of Bani Qurayza. These are not trivial issues, whether from the point of view of the religion, or the life of the community, showing that the prophet, although the uncontested leader of his people, was not acting from his own accord in essential matters. The ahadith relate several other encounters with the same man, unknown to the closest companions, appearing in unlikely circumstances among the people, then disappearing, and always in slightly different physical shape. He would be identified as the angel Jibril whenever the people inquired to the prophet. This "man" was around the prophet and the community from the very beginning, as the prophet was taught the first revelation, to other instances where the companions witnessed him teaching the Quran to the prophet, to when they saw him visit the prophet when he became sick. In terms of resemblance, the prophet likened him to a companion named Dihya. Someone else once confused him with Dihya too. Dihya as a side note, was not influential in the community in any way, even after the prophet's death did not attain to any leading position, neither was he among the closest companions whose decisions were considered by the prophet, nor was he knowledgeable so as to contribute to the Quran. Despite this closeness of interaction, none among the community was able to get a hold of the mysterious visitor, or could interact with him once the purposes of his visits were over. Medina's population at the time was around 20.000, the type of social life was very open and each individual had a very large network of friends and kinsfolk. It would have been impossible for this man to escape the people's grasp, let alone the numerous hypocrites who were always on the lookout to discredit the prophet, had he been known or been living in or anywhere near Medina. Other appearances were observed during battles, with men dressed as the occasional visitor of the prophet was
"Narrated Sa`d: On the day of the battle of Uhud, on the right and on the left of the Prophet were two men wearing white clothes, and I had neither seen them before, nor did I see them afterwards".
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Abu Bakr's collection, as stated earlier was assembled on loose parchments. It was not compiled in book form and reproduced, up to the time of Uthman. It was meant for safekeeping so as to ensure the availability of a complete and approved written testimony to the Quran. Also, AbuBakr's collection was not meant as a standard by which people should refer to in their recital. And so, until the time of Uthman, people kept using their personal codices and ways of recital. Under Abu Bakr' caliphate, Muslim land had not yet expanded beyond the Peninsula, a territory where people were already familiar with the proper reading and recitation of the Quran. However with the rapid expansions to new lands and people under Umar then Uthman, the complete Uthmanic text, properly ordered and rewritten according to the new rasm, was sent to various provinces along with a memorizer to demonstrate the proper reading. Uthman did so under his caliphate upon receipt of the very first report about variant recitations in the provinces.
The differences were dialectical and in the manners of vocalization; and this is what the reporter, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who was sent on a campaign to Azerbaidjan had noticed on his return march. Among the revisionist western scholarship, some have conveniently rejected that account in favor of one stating that the difference noticed by Hudhayfa was one where 2 groups of men recited 2:196 with 1 different word lilbayt instead of lillah. Besides the fact that such typical grasping at a handful of convenient accounts and dismissing the mass of traditional literature that isnt self-serving, the revisionists fail to undermine the Quran's preservation. That account doesnt entail generalized corruption and in fact reinforces the Muslim position. The preservation of the Quran is due to the massive consensus of the community, not on the opinion of a few individuals. This is because humans are prone to error, such as the group of people in the report about 2:196. The error was detected, precisely because there was consensus as to the correct form of the Quran, and a plan to tacle the issue, avoid it taking greater proportions, was put in place the same year.
It is to be noted, recital variations had already been detected and addressed by the previous caliph who had rebuked ibn Masud for accepting to teach in the Hudhail dialect to accomodate some people of Iraq. But by Uthman's time, the variations were more widespread given the expansion of the Muslim empire. Again, this process of proper Quranic education and memorization of the far provinces had already started under Umar the previous caliph who had been entrusted with Abubakr's compilation. Umar sent teachers that established schools in Kufa, Basra, Syria out of which came 100s of students and future teachers would come out from.
The reason that prompted Uthman's Quran project, and Abubakr's before him, is thus very different than having to put a canon together from among conflicting traditions each claiming to be the divine truth. This was the case with Christianity's competing sects like the Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, proto-orthodox (named as such because they were the ones that eventually were adopted by the state) each insisting that they correctly upheld the teachings of Jesus. All were in competition to become the rightful, offically endorsed version.
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Although Hafs was rejected as a hadith narrator, a science that is completely unrelated to the art of Quran recitation or capacity to memorize, he was however never questioned in the field of recitation itself, neither by those who deemed him untrustworthy in hadith nor by his fellow students. As to the fact that Hafs would borrow books to copy them without returning them, with the only specific case mentionned being a book from his contemporary student colleague Shu'bah, what is important to mention firstly is that only Shu'bah made that claim, which is why no other explicit example of borrowing and not returning exists.
Second, it was nothing strange and in fact the norm back then for even powerful narrators to borrow eachothers' books and copy the narrations they contained into their hadith collection. As to not returning Shu'bah's book, this could have been due to many things other than "stealing". Nobody ever accused Hafs in that context of being a book thief!
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Allah has repeatedly pledged throughout the Quran that He will structure and compile, explain and protect the Quran from falsehood
15:9"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it".
This verse comes in answer to the prophet's opponents, trying to discredit him with taunts and sarcasms. It tells them this reminder is divinely sent, meaning not the product of the person they are objecting to. So in reality they are opposing God who sent it. And even if they try to oppose the One who sent it, the only way being to tamper or destroy His communications, then the verse tells them in the form of a strong affirmation, this revelation will remain firmly guarded.
As a side note, "the reminder/al dhikr" is a general word that may be used to anything that serves the function of reminding. This reminding can be done in many ways, including orally. It is the context that defines what is meant by it. In 15:9 above it means the Quran, whether written or recited from memory. The pledge of protection despite the people's opposition to Muhammad refers only to the Quran in that passage.
In 16:43, the reminder/al dhikr refers to whatever served the function of reminding prior to the Quran, and this includes both written and oral traditions of the Jews and Christians, in totality. In 21:105 the dhikr still refers to whatever served the function of reminding prior to the Quran, but this time, to the exclusion of certain Judeo-Christian scriptures, namely the Psalms and all that came after it. Dhikr here refers to what was divinely inspired prior to the Psalms of David.
In 40:53-4 the dhikr/the reminder is in reference to what served as a reminder of the truth to the Israelites only, and which they inherited from Moses. This means the Torah exclusively. All these verse prove that the generic word dhikr/reminder is flexible and its application depends on the context of its use; it does not mean the same thing everytime it appears, and not everything that the Quran says about it in a context, applies to another context.
Just as when it refers to both the Quran and the Torah with the general word "writing/kitab" doesnt mean they are one and the same writing, or that what it says in the context of the writing being the Quran, also applies to the Torah because it is also called a writing in another passage. The same goes for other dual applications of general words to both the Quran and previous scriptures, such as criterion, guidance, light etc.
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
The "7 ahruf" which the prophet is reported to have requested from Gabriel is an enigmatic issue upon which very little is known out of all the corpus of reliable hadith. The only description of these 7 ahruf given by the prophet is that it would serve the purpose of accommodating people of different levels of literacy and fluency of the language, in their recital of the Quran. The Muslim scholars did not differ on the purpose of the ahruf but over how they achieved that purpose.
Most of the early opinions, as alluded to by Al Suyuti in his al Itqan are repetitive and overlap. He speaks of around 40 opinions without quoting them all. What he quotes can be summed up as follows.
- The 7 ahruf are ambiguous due to the word harf having different lexical meanings (a letter of the alphabet, a word, a meaning, or a way). - Harf means a way of pronunciation. - The 7 ahruf indicate seven meanings - others say 7 ways of recitation using synonyms - or 7 of the most eloquent dialects of the Arabs. - Finally the view of Ibn Qutayba who said the 7 ahruf allowed a range of flexibility in the reading and sometimes the text itself; vocalizations that may or may not change the meaning of a word, letter alterations that may or may not change the meaning and/or the consonantal outline of a word, variations in word orders.
Anyone arguing for a late invention of the 7 ahruf is ignorant of the reality of 7th century Arabia. Arabs were mostly illiterate, with various pronunciations or dialects. It would have been impossible for them to abandon their own dialects and ways of recitation all at once. This means the phenomenon of various modes must have occured in the prophet's life The 7 revealed ahruf are what allowed the oral tradition to be fluid prior to the fixation of the text under Uthman, but without that fluidity stepping outside the limits of divine revelation.
As appropriately noted by professor Déroche
"as long as the prophet was present to validate or not a recitation of one of the companions, the fluidity of the revelation could be preserved without difficulty".
The reported variants attributed to the close companions of the prophet were undoubtedly approved by him.
The scholarly opinions quoted earlier as to the precise nature of the 7 ahruf, all have their strengths and weaknesses, examples and counterexamples. The common denominator is that they are modes, that allow linguistic variations in the manner of reciting the Quran. One mode could allow for more than one recitation. For example if the mode in question is about using synonyms, then one word could be read in more than one way. The recitations resulting from these 7 ahruf are thus generally accepted as 10, going back to the prophet, transmitted through multiple independent channels. If these reciting methods were only reported by a few or single individual on any level of the chain, they were termed shaadh/anomalous. If only a taabi'i would report such readings, they would equally be termed shaadh. Jalal al Din al Bulqini classified the reading of the taabi'i Saeed ibn Jubayr as shaadh. That is why we do not find his reading of 18:79-80 for instance in the canon, nor through any other channel. As a side note in regards to this category of qiraat, they are not completely different qiraat, they in fact overlap with the mutawaatir 10 in the vast majority, just as the mutawaatir overlap among eachother except for a tiny number of words.
Among those that reported the isnad of each reading is ibn Hazm al andalusi. Imam Jazari observed in an-Nashar that:
"Indeed some of the latter scholars had imposed Tawatir on the condition of authenticity of a Qira'ah, they were not only satisfied with authenticity, but believed that Quran could not be confirmed unless with Tawatir and any narration that falls into Ahaad's category could not be confirmed as Quran".
These same people, such as al Jazari or al Shaatibi that clearly attest to the mass transmission of every authentic qira'a, they had limited themselves to a chain of single individuals going to the prophet. This was done for brievty's sake, tracing each reading through notable names.
Recent people with poor knowledge of these well established and extensive scholarly works on the topic, have taken these single reports as proof against the mass transmission of the qiraa'at. This of course is an absurdity. Had it been the case, there would not have been varying levels of authenticity among the qiraa'at, as stated with the shaadh qiraa'at. Also, it is obvious that when people like ibn Masud, who was among the many that learned his reading from the prophet, when he (ibn Masud) moved to Kufa where he taught Aasim who then taught Hafs, the most popular reading today, Aasim in Kufa certainly was not the only one learning from ibn Masud. Ibn Masud had a massive popularity in that city and the people adopted his reading in defiance of the caliphate whose official reading was another authentic one.
Among sunni jurists, Hanbali al-Tufi (d. 716 H) was the one most skeptical in terms of whether the major qiraat were traceable through tawatur to the prophet. But he never denied the Tawatur of the recitations from their eponymous readers. He even criticized those who thought his position implied non-tawatur of the Quran. He notes that this is not the case, because the Quran is not identical with qiraat, and there is consensus on the tawatur of the Quran.
As a side note, ibn Mujahid compiled a popular book in which he only listed 7 readings, which later led to some thinking that the readings were restricted to only 7. The famous qiraat scholar Abu Shamah (665/1267) said
"No one thinks that these seven readings are what is meant in the hadith except the ignorant".
Ibn Mujahid simply wanted to list those he deemed more popular because of the major cities wherein they were most famous, such as Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Basra and Damascus. As noted by ibn Atiyyah, the teachers of these 7 readings used their ijtihad, or religious jurisprudence, to select which among the already existing variants were in conformity with the criteria of authenticity; these being, agreement with the grammar and the Uthmanic recension. The scholars have added 3 other readings on top of those 7, from among the known variants. These 3 additional readings are mutawaatir like the 7, and, similarly, conform to grammar rules and to Uthman's mushaf. Some have counted more than these 10 but their list was disputed by other scholars in light of the aforementioned criteria of authenticity.
Also, anyone can make recital mistakes due to one's own peculiar way of pronouncing certain words and letters. Then transmit those errors to others. This has no bearing on the issue of Quran authenticity unless one can prove that these errors became widespread until assimilated in the approved readings. Or that there was resistance when these errors were pointed and declared inauthentic.
Another thing to note is that ibn Mujahid was not the first to write a book on qira'at. The first compiler of qira'at was Abu Ubayy Qasim ibn Salam, who collected 25 in total, including those famous 7. Then Ahmad bn Jubair al-kufi wrote on only five Qira'at, selecting one reader from each city. Then Ismail ibn Ishaq with his 20 authoritative readers, including the 7 famous ones. At-Tabari recorded 20 Qira'at in his Al-Jami'u fil Qira'at. Tabari affirms the divinity of the qiraat. When discussing 2 variant readings of 37:12, he proposes that multiple readings were miraculously dictated to the Prophet simultaneously, just as has been known in the famous hadith from Hisham.
Then al-Dujuni talked about 11 readers.
Finally came Ibn Mujahid and was the first to restrict his work on the famous 7. We find that the Quran commentators were the ones to report as many readings as they could, regardless of authenticity criteria. Their objective was to give all possible nuances of understanding to certain Quran passages. In addition, several writers of the first two Hijri centuries are mentioned as having produced books on qiraat, though their works did not survive. Among them: Yahia ibn Ya'mur (d. 90 H), Aban ibn Taghlib (d. 141 H), Muqatil ibn Sulayman (d. 150 H), Abu Amr ibn al-'Ala (d. 154 H), Za'idah ibn Qudāmah al-Thaqafī (d. 161 H) and al-Akhfash al-Akbar (d. 177 H).
Uthman's compilation was thus written, as alluded to earlier, in a particular rasm (orthography) which became known as al-rasm al-Uthmani. That orthography included addition, deletion and substitution of letters to make the text easier to read. That rasm made it possible from the beginning for some words to be read in more than one authenticated qiraat/readings/recitations method, going back with strong certainty to the prophet
“I heard Hisham ibn Hakim ibn Hizam reciting Surat al-Furqan (Sura 25) differently from me, and it was the Messenger of Allah who had recited it to me. I was about to rush up to him but I granted him a respite until he had finished his prayer. Then I grabbed him by his cloak and took him to the Messenger of Allah and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I heard this man reciting Surat al-Furqan differently from the way you recited it to me.’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Let him go.’ Then he said, ‘Recite, Hisham,’ and Hisham recited as I had heard him recite. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘It was sent down like that.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite’ and I recited the sura, and he said, ‘It was sent down like that. This Qur’an was sent down in seven ways, so recite from it whatever is easy for you.’ ”.
This undisputed hadith shows 3 major points; the Quran as we have it today, along with its authentically reported variations is preserved just as it was revealed. The second point is that no companion, including Umar ibn al khattab, the 2nd Caliph, quoted above, mastered all the qiraat/recitation types at once. The final point is that the companions were on the lookout for the slightest unapproved variant in recital.
Umar’s reaction, as a side note, is not a disapproval or ignorance of the phenomenon of variant readings. His reaction just shows that he was unaware of that particular reading of Hisham.
What had happened to Umar as he came across a mode of recitation other than his for the first time, had also occurred to Ubayy ibn Kaab
"I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur'in) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah's Messenger and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Messenger of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation)".
We see again the same pattern of the close companions being on high alert at all moments to the matter of the transmission and preservation of the Quran. The matter was so dear to Ubayy that
"there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance".
Although Ubayy did not verbally express his thoughts, the prophet felt his unease
"he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear".
The prophet engaged him physically so as to bring him out of his state of confusion and make him focus on what he was about to tell him
"He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur'an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession)".
This state of momentary doubt is something that might affect any believer of the highest degree, even in the presence of a prophet. It is interesting that Christian critics bring this minor issue up of Ubayy's inner feelings as if it is anything similar to what is depicted in their own books; Peter, the pillar of the church and chief of the apostles forcefully denied Jesus after his arrest. Prior to that, he did Satan's work by being a "stumbling block" to Jesus. Judas explicitly gave Jesus up to the authorities. Eventually all of the close circle "forsook him, and fled".
Another instance involving Umar is when he heard a variant from someone who had studied under Ubay ibn Kaab. He immediately took the man to Ubay for confirmation and even made Ubay testify three times that the variant had come from the prophet, prior to letting the man go. It has also been reported that Ubay read 48:26 with the addition
"and if you had felt disdain like they felt, the masjid e haram would have been corrupted".
Umar was unaware of that reading and again objected, showing once more how the companions never felt complacent in the preservation of their sacred scripture. Umar did not simply let that pass based on the precedent of their being variants he did not know that proved to be true. He went and asked for the testimony of Zayd ibn Thabit, who sided with him. But upon Ubay's insistence, Umar let him read as he pleased, based on his virtues and trustworthiness in the transmission of the Quran (Al Haakim, Al Mustadrak alal sahihayn). What is clear however is that Ubay did not transmit this reading to his students, because it was an exegetical variant, as seen earlier, approved by the prophet but aimed at helping the companion personally in his own understanding and assimilation of the text. This is supported by 2 important points; Umar was not aware of that recitation although he heard this sura directly from the Prophet on the occasion of Hudaybiyya. And second Ubay's reading through Abu Jaafar, Ibn Kathir, and Abu Amr, does not report this addition (Kitab al Mabani, Muqaddimatan 91-93).
There is a reverse case with Umar's reading of 62:9 being dropped in favor of Ubay's. This shows that the rule in regards to readings that changed the structure of a word or verse, was to adopt the consensus reading, and that the companions knew that the permissions the prophet had given them in that regard were meant for their personal use. An explicit example is Bukhari's report of ibn Abbas' reading of 26:214. He is sometimes quoted reciting it with additional words and at other times he recites it exactly as is found in the Uthmanic recension. This is because he was aware the different reading was meant for his personal assimilation and elaboration over the text, and that the consensus was to read it according to what has come down to us, and as massively reported through multiple chains.
And if the companions themselves were not aware of every aspect of all readings approved by the prophet, then it is only natural that their students would sometimes encounter the same problem
"The companions of `Abdullah (bin Mas`ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as `Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear `Abdullah bin Mas`ud reciting Surat Al-
Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited: 'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:-- 'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow them."
Both Alqama and Abu Darda recited 92:3 without "ma khalaqa", as we find in today's Quran. Alqama heard it from his master ibn Masud and Abu Darda confirmed the authenticity of that variant as coming from the prophet. But other readers recited differently, according to what their own masters and companions of the prophet taught them, meaning without those leniencies recited by the prophet to his companions. Since the prophet this time was not present to arbitrate, each side remained on a reading traced to the prophet. However the reading of ibn Mas'ud has reached us today and is called the reading of Shu'ba. Yet we do not find this variant in their recital. This shows that it was eventually dropped in favor of the massive consensus/tawattur, the ultimate criterion of preservation of the Quran. Ibn al Jazari (see his Nashr) was thus completely justified in rejecting that reading of 92:3 based on it being transmitted through ahad/isolated report that contradicts the consensus.
Even Ibn Abbas came across a manuscript thinking the scribe had made an error. These errors, such as 24:27 or 17:23 were simply variants he wasnt aware of. They are all present in today's Quran. When he became aware of the authenticity of these readings, he accepted, them, just as Umar quoted earlier. This is because when ibn Abbas was asked
"Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings (of the Qur'an)".
This declaration is significant because it shows that even in the extreme case where ibn Abbas stuck to an exegetical reading, as is reported concerning 4:24, he still ultimately agreed with the consensus reading that has come down to us.
As to 24:27, Al-Tabari reports ibn Abbas' comment on it.Ibn Abbas first quotes the conventional reading, after which he juxtaposes his own reading, showing what is already known about the 2 words tasta'nisu/tasta'dhinu being near synonyms. This also proves that he had approved the conventional reading. The situation is similar with 17:23. At Tabari quotes a report where Nusayr ibn abi Al Ashaab says that a person was given a mushaf by ibn Abbas that read wassa instead of qada as we have today. At Tabari then quotes another report where the same reading was found in a mushaf with Nusayr, who then said that wassa and qada are near-synonyms. This shows again that those companions whose mushaf diverged from the consensus in near-synonyms, ultimately adopted the majority reading.
It would be very far fetched for the different scribes to have copied the same error in all of Uthman's commissioned compilations. Further there are cases of reported scribal errors which were swiftly corrected by Uthman, during his compilation of the mushaf
"I was with ‘Uthmaan when they were presenting the Mus-hafs to him. He sent me to Ubayy ibn Ka‘b with the shoulder blade of a sheep, on which was written, “lam yatasanna” and “laa tabdeelah lil-khalq” and “fa amhil al-kaafireen”. He called for an ink pot and erased one of the two laams (in the word “lil khalq”) and wrote “li khalq-illah (“in the creation of Allah” – referring to the verse “No change let there be in Khalq¬illâh (i.e. the religion of Allâh)” [ar-Room 30:30]). He erased the word fa amhil and wrote “fa mahhil” (“so give respite” referring to the verse“So give respite to the disbelievers” [at-Taariq 86:17]). And he wrote lam yatasannah (“they show no change”, referring to the verse “they show no change” [al-Baqarah 2:259]); he added the letter haa’ to it".
It was the purpose of Uthman's compilation effort, to integrate as many recitations methods as possible in one universal script. Hence the above cases of correction and discarding any defective script that didnt allow that dynamism. Why would he allow a scribal error in all standardized texts to be disseminated when he went to such length in avoiding precisely that?
There are so many ahadith about the revelation of the Quran in the seven ahruf that Abu Ubayd al Qasim Ibn Sallam (224/838) considered them mutawatir. He rejected only one of those, referring to the seven ahruf as being revealed in seven different meanings. Al Suyuti counted twenty companions among the transmitters of those ahadith. Some of these companions had sometimes several students reporting the hadith from their master. As is the case with Ubay's students, Asim, Humayd or ibn Abi Layla, all considered trustworthy narrators, and earlier sources than even al Zuhri. Same is the case with ibn Masud's student abu al Ahwas whose own students al Sabi'i or abi al Hudayl narrated the hadith on the ahruf. There is a hadith about Uthman asking those present at the mosque of Medina if any of them heard the prophet say
"The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven ahruf".
In response, a huge number of them stood up and testified that they had heard this hadith. Uthman in turn testified with them. That is why the prophet, and the scholars have forbidden to argue on this matter or to favor one harf over another
"Verily this Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven ahruf, in every harf you recite you have done so correctly. So do not argue, since this may lead to kufr".
Those questioning the authenticity of the hadith can only rely on weak and disconnected reports to build a case. For instance the unreliable alternate rendering of the hadith, where Hisham's variant occurs at the beginning of an unspecified chapter. Some recent critics have searched for variant readings at a sura's beginning and found that sura Furqan was recited differently at its beginning, by Abdallah ibn al Zubayr. They thus argue that his brother Urwah, who narrated from al Zuhri, might have initiated the idea of variant readings to vindicate his brother's mushaf. But this variant is attributed to al Zubayr 700 years later by Abu Hayyan, making the connection doubtful, besides the tawaatur of the report as stated earlier.
And important thing to note is that the very acceptance of the 7 ahruf hadith goes against the natural reaction of a scholar. Reported variations in the text or its reading should be dismissed as human errors, especially when the standard text is overwhelmingly available, spread geographically and accepted by all sects. But all the classical scholars accepted the hadith. They already knew about that pre-existing phenomenon, it didnt spring into existence spontaneously but was progressively transmitted from master to student. And even if they wanted to deny that reality, they could not brush off the undeniable authenticity of the hadith. That is why we find no disagreement as to the reality of the 7 ahruf.
And despite this acceptance the Muslim scholars did not question the perfect preservation of the Quran. Not because of a dogmatic position but because of the traditional and empirical evidence. The Quran we read today is slightly different than the one left by the prophet but this does not mean it is not authentic. This goes back to the issue of approved qiraat/readings going back to the prophet. The prophet himself told the Muslims that the Quran can be recited in different ways. The Uthmanic rasm is different in places than the Quran recited by the prophet because Uthman included more than 1 potential Qiraa in his text. And all these potential qiraat he included go back with absolute certainty to the prophet. The issue of Quranic preservation therefore is not affected by whether the Quran we read today is exactly the same as the last recital of the prophet the year he died. These differences, it is to be kept in mind, affect a tiny fraction of the total words of revelation. They have no bearing on the issues of faith unlike variants we see in the history of the Bible, like a variant reading not containing the resurrection tale (codex sinaiticus), Greek quotes of the HB by Paul that change the original Hebrew, or insertions that imply a trinitarian reading of certain passages.
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
The "Quran of Cairo" uses an elaborate system of modified vowel-signs and a set of additional symbols for minute details and is based on the Hafs reading. This edition has become the standard for modern printings of the Quran, since 1924 when the printing house was established in Cairo. Before that point, the Quran was printed in Istanbul until it ceased being the capital of the caliphate. Again, this is not a different Quran, but one whose Uthmanic rasm was improved over several years until 1924, so as to minimize scribal errors. Many such errors were detected in Quran copies which the Egyptian government used to import prior to 1924. These errors, in modern copies -not in ancient manuscripts-, are irrelevant in determining the authenticity of the Quranic text since they were pointed, and the copies destroyed by sinking them in the Nile river.
There are no differences between the Quran printed in Cairo and the ones printed all over the Muslim world. The Cairo edition is based on the well known hafs reading of the prophet himself. There was never any canonization process and debates, revisions over what the Quran's contents had to be. This is exactly what occured with the Bible with different canons over time. Nothing in the history of the Quranic text, even by the furthest stretch of imaginaton and revisionist fantasies, can be compared to the tumultuous 400 years following Jesus' death, which marked the canonization process of the Bible.
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Uthman was leader when the Muslim lands had already expanded over a third of the known world and the Quranic transmission was an on-going phenomenon mainly through memory. It would have been impossible for him, or anyone more powerful than him, to destroy all personal, private copies had there already existed differing traditions on written Qurans and manuscripts spread throughout the empire, let alone destroy all these "alternate" Qurans from the Muslims' memories and prevent their recitation. It should be easy to provide empirical proof for these claims, like in Christianity, where there is manuscript evidence as well as a whole history of textual revisions, disagreements of what should or shouldnt be canonical.
There is nothing even remotely similar in Islam.
Also it is well known how Uthman's control on his own far regions, including Iraq and Egypt was weak. Hence his inability to control the rebellions and the rulers of the farthest regions of his empire, until he was finally assassinated in Medina. These rebels and their rulers who never accepted Uthman's authority and upon whom he had no control did not need to reach the seat of the caliphate to have and propagate their own Qurans in their own regions upon which they had authority, just as their predecessors who never swore allegiance to the previous caliphs. So despite their hatred for the caliphate, these rebels that the caliphs could not even control, magically followed Abu Bakr then Uthman's Quran in their own prayers, abandoning what they thought was God's word for the person they had actually revolted against and assassinated? Not a single source speaks of dispute between competing texts or of a rejection of Uthman's copy in favor of another.
Similarly the tensions surrounding the succession of the prophet had every reason to incite people to alter the Quran in their favor yet we find that all disputes and arguments between leaders and supporters against the opposite camp were never based on the Quran but on sayings of the prophet and his companions. The authoritative consonantal skeleton of the Quran is unanimously traced back to Uthman, not only by the Sunni tradition but also by eir historical enemies like the Kharijites and the Shia. These groups and even sub groups were willing to go to war for their theological positions. They fabricated ahadith in defence of their views yet none ever tampered with the Quran. Not that they were not tempted, rather the oral and textual dissemination was such that corruption became impossible without being detected and discredited. So how could this pan-Islamic consensus have formed at a time when the Islamic community had spread from Spain to Iran, had split into several hostile groups, unless the Quran had attained the level of mass transmission/tawaatur? How could Uthman or even Abd al-Malik after him, have coerced their various adversaries to adopt "their" version of scripture, in addition crediting Uthman for it? There were other existing recensions, compiled by the prophet's companions such as that of Ibn Masud which he received from Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the prophet. Why didnt the Shia adopt it in order to demarcate themselves from the sunni? They could have in addition credited Ali for the compilation instead of Uthman. Also, variants are all still attested in many scholarly works throughout the centuries, with their chains of transmission, some authentically attested to the prophet and others of weaker authenticity. There is no widescale conspiracy to hide or suppress anything nor would it have been possible by the wildest stretch of imagination. And burning the defective copies did nothing to erase the knowledge of the variants from the hearts of the people, well after Uthman. Why didnt someone or at least a group of people who had preserved their alternate versions, somewhere in the vast caliphate begin the process of rewriting and propagating their own copies allegedly suppressed by Uthman?
It is obvious Uthman, who could not assert his political power in those lands, would not have been able to control something even more complex and dynamic and far ranging, which is the recitation and transmission of the Quran. And if Uthman had his own enemies to the point they revolted in Iraq and Egypt, and marched to Medina to have him assassinated, why would these people agree to Uthman's Quran? They surely would have kept their own "Qurans" but it didnt happen. So how did these multiple Qurans just disappear out of the collective conscience of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims, through the introduction of just 6-9 manuscripts, considering the fact that the vast majority of Muslims was illiterate anyway. And all this through the "force" of a man who was assassinated in his own house, as said earlier, unable to assert his political authority, yet he supposedly and just magically controlled all these various competing traditions of not just manuscripts, but RECITED words? We have over 15 years, including Umar's extensive rule of Africa, Asia and parts of Central Asia, to Persia, meaning one is talking about a deeply embedded culture prior to Uthman even taking the reigns of rule. How did all these millions upon whom he in addition had no control line up in such a short-time to relearn and re-memorize the Quran due to a few manuscripts they couldnt even read, and abandon their differing tradition?
The opposition against Uthman, his growing unpopularity, and for which he was eventually assassinated, was due to divergence from the practice of the two preceding caliphs in handling the public trust of the Muslims, and other such issues. But his work relating to the Quran was appreciated equally by his friends and foes and it was never made a point of stigma on him by his adversaries. Had Uthman altered the Quran, that would have served as the clearest argument for, and major justification of, his public assassination.
Anyone thus claiming alterations in the Quran under Uthman, would be at variance with the most elementary reasoning.
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
Authenticity of the Quran isnt contingent on whether we have in our hands manuscripts written or approved by Uthman. The authentification and transmission of the Quran was always, since the time of the prophet, primarily oral. The Quran allows such endeavour because it isnt a text whose meaning and applicability is locked in time. And that is why the Muslims have not attached much importance to transmitting the minute detailed meaning of every passage, from the prophet and his companions, but they have instead focused on transmitting the text of the Quran itself. It was always the purpose of the Quran and its sharia to be adaptable accross time and space.
That is why we have very few reports by the prophet giving his interpretation of the Quran. We are not talking of the core messages which are agreed upon, but of passages with multilayered meanings and implications, whose interpretations are open depending on the socio-cultural background or even the scientific knowledge of its contemporaries. These passages are open to many interpretations so long as they do not contradict the firm and unambiguous verses, which the Quran calls muhkam. It is these supposedly "obscure" parts of the book, that most modern critics of Islam use to build their theories on the origins of the Quran. They begin by discrediting the oral transmission process of the Quran based on the presence of these "blind spots" of Quranic exegisis. They think this constitutes proof that the oral transmission chain was broken, hence the absence of a consensus on the meaning of these passages.
These critics then dismiss centuries of accumulated Muslim scholarship, debates on all levels of the religion, textual, historical, sectarian, juristic, exegetical, theological, that led to the conclusions Muslims hold today as regards the Quran's authenticity, and all this, despite their awareness of various layers of meaning to certain passages. The critics then propose readings based on emendation of the text, changing letters and words so as to prove that "their" reading is more in line with what they individually think the message of a specific passage should be. The effortless cohesive theological structure of the text, the intricate connections between all of its passages and words is irrelevant and not worth considering. What is primordial is that their "improved" reading be violently forced into the text so as to integrate the Quran in the wider socio-religious context in which they suppose it came. The main purpose being the find their holy grail, to reveal the underlying sources that inspired it. The end result is an incoherent new book that has nothing to do with the original, with sometimes theological implications that Muslims of the past and today would never agree with. But in their minds, the purpose has been accomplished.
The uniqueness of the Quran as a religious text orally transmitted, is now a pious legend, regardless of the thousands around the world in our own time doing just that, emulating their predecessors. The reality of the matter is that as a result of that revisionist approach to the Quran, all these critics converge on the same grounds; they do not know how the Quran originated, where it came from, and when it first appeared, how and in what language it was written, what form it first took, who was the first audience, how was it transmitted from one generation to another, especially in its early years, when, how, and by whom it was codified.
These are all basic issues taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts, much older than the Quran. Muslim tradition has for long resolved all these issues. Recent critical scholarship will eventually go back to the initial, much more constructive approach of pionneers in the field, by considering the historicity of the events agreed upon over the centuries by the Muslim scholars, and then try and build up their claims, whatever these might be. The Quran in many places is like a live transcript of a religious community being established. It reflects the context in which it was revealed and that is why the controversial methodology of stripping it from the historical context that the authentic Muslim sources have described for it results in inability to ascertain its context of revelation.
Another similar helpless situation in which the revisionists have put themselves in, but are now progressively back pedaling from, is due to the dismissal of the near totality of the pre-Islamic poetry corpus as unreliable. This left scholars virtually nothing with which to compare the Quran. Western Islamicists were then left with the limitation of etymological studies in order to derive the original, more proper, and of course extremely biased meaning of its words. They began digging for cognates from common Semitic languages like Hebrew or Syriac, presuming that the vocabulary of the Quran is misused and derivative. Its theology too was seen as defective, due to borrowing from Judaism and Christianity, and was thus similarily in need of reinterpretation.
The strong oral tradition is the reason why we find reports stating that the process of compilation was never a priority until memorizers started dying out in battles. The priority given to oral transmission is a phenomenon ongoing today and will remain so. It is irrelevant to Muslims whether we have many or few manuscripts attesting to our Quran, even if those few are found to be filled with errors and differences in comparison to what we have today.
Neither would the availability of early manuscripts confirming the written text we have today, constitue strong proof for the Quran's authenticity. Someone with enough power and authority could have decided to write the first Quran compilation and disseminate it as the original left by the prophet. This however would have only been possible if the Muslim tradition, like the Judeo-Christian one, had neglected its strong oral tradition.
So what would really challenge the Quran's authenticity is whether we have a variety of conflicting and competing traditions, primarily oral. Assuming for argument's sake that there are textual variations among manuscripts, or that we have no manuscripts belonging to Uthman, who by the way wasnt the first but the second compiler of the Quran into book form, is irrelevant, even laughable to a Muslim audience when trying to undermine the Quran's preservation. Because again, that preservation was, is and always will be, primarily oral. Trying to criticize the Quran from that angle is thus a fruitless effort, especially when the critic is coming from a background whose religious texts have a known history of neglectfulness or total loss of textual tradition. Such criticism only is valid from the view point of these critics because in the transmission process of their own tradition, they have entirely disregarded the oral aspect. Written texts and manuscripts thus become crucial to them in order to validate and authenticate their current scriptures and beliefs, even though such attestation in and of itself isnt strong proof of authenticity.
So, coming from such a poor background in terms of oral tradition, it is thus but natural for these critics to boast of their numerous manuscripts in comparison to the Quran, even though these early manuscripts of theirs contradict one another and sometimes are very damaging to their current pillars of faith. To this we may add the revisions and corruptions of the text, unknown or confused authorship, broken transmission chain, or even loss of the language of the person to whom the text is ascribed.
All these, and other issues are problems that plagued the Biblical traditions, even to the point that the majoritarily accepted canons was different throughout the ages, even today with different Judeo-christian traditions having their own canon as God's word. Nothing even remotely similar happened to the Quran.
Again, we are comparing an oral society that made the progressive transition towards written with its first ever book, the Quran, of which we have abounding 1st and 2nd century Hijra manuscripts, comparing it with a well established written society. This Graeco-Roman written civilization is expected to have abounding written evidence for its central scriptures. Yet its manuscript attestation, the earlier we go back to the source, the more scant, obscure and inconsistent it becomes. The theory of late (post 200AH) composition of the Quran has been discarded even among the most hardened revisionists and orientalists, in light of the substantial and constantly increasing discoveries of 1st century hijri (622-719CE) Quranic manuscripts. The total texts extracted from these early manuscripts amount for over 90% of the current Quranic text. Contrast this with the single credit card size manuscript remnant of the NT whose dating is disputed somewhere along the 1st century CE. The issue of individual scribal errors is natural, to anyone who knows the various difficulties of copying a lengthy text prior to the printing era. The more essential question would be whether these individual errors were reproduced on a large enough scale so as to corrupt the majority of the transmitted text. This of course never occurred with the Quran, due to its dual, oral/written, mode of transmission. Even the variant readings, approved by the prophet, recorded and attested in books of tafsir, even those readings that change the skeletal Uthmanic text (a tiny minority of all variants and which are not contradictory), were never scripturally transmitted on a scale that would alter the majority of manuscripts throughout time. This again, attests to the well known and established phenomenon of mass oral transmission, as is done to this very day. These textual variations were for the most part restricted to companion codices, meant for the companions' personal use, hence their label by the scholars as companios' readings.
In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"
There is not a single report saying that al-Hajjaj opposed Uthman's recension. Yet many traditions depict him as disparaging other authoritative compilations in circulations, such as the one of ibn Masud. Also, al-Hajjaj was merely the governor of one county -Iraq- of the huge Islamic land without the ability to do the Quran any harm. In Uthman's time itself, countless copies of his codexes were already disseminated far and wide. The phenomenon was even more amplified by the time of al-Hajjaj.
Supposing that he was still able to change the copies of his county how could he reach the 1000s of other ones in other districts, let alone reform and reset the people's memories to his "major alterations"? This is equivalent to saying that should suddenly the king of Saudi Arabia decide to forcefully change the Quran entirely in his own country today, then it would mean those changes could somehow affect the memories and written Qurans of billions worldwide. In his own lifetime, when al-Hajjaj dispatched one of his codices to Egypt, the local governor Abd al-Aziz ibn Marwan, rejected it, then had his own codex produced. Al-Hajjaj's authority in the matter was thus regional at most. He was not in a position to carry out an empire-wide standardization of scripture.
The bottom line is that even by the furthest stretch of the imagination, if one would accept the claim of corruption of the Quran as true, then how does that really impact the remaining oral and written tradition already disseminated far beyond al-Hajjaj's jurisdiction? It is worth reminding that there exists no parallel reports, contemporary or later, through another chain to substantiate the claim as regards al-Hajjaj. No contradiction is ever mentionned between the Codices of Iraq and the other Codices. The Abbassid dynasty that was built upon the ruins of the Umayyads, of whom al-Hajjaj was the most notable governor, did not waste a single occasion to show the Umayyad's negative aspects and effects on Islam in general. And yet we do not hear or read a word as regards this particular controversy, most significant in discrediting an enemy with whom they were at war. If anything, what the historical reports show is that al Hajjaj was very helpful in consolidating the Uthmanic text, not a new one or his own invented one.
That is why the Abbassid caliphs, that supplanted the Umayyads did not destroy al-Hajjaj's copies but instead would tacitly discredit it, by for example, putting it in a box on the side of the pillar adjacent to the minbar in the mosque (Ibn Zabala). Contrary to some critics' claims, al-Hajjaj was very careful in preserving the Uthmanic recension. He for instance immidiately summoned Yazid al-Farisi, the scribe of his predecessor Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad because of the introduction of 2 alef in 2 verses 23:87,89. Ibn Ziad had done it simply to agree with his Basran dialect. This shows how alteration or tampering with the Quran from al-Hajjaj, or anyone else for that matter, even if minimal, cannot have taken place without any reaction from the contemporary scholars.
The background of al-Hajjaj's compilation effort is this. His governorship came at a time of great political turmoil in Iraq between the shiite Kufans and the ruling Umayyads. Tension had already started in the time of his predecessor ibn Ziyad. The Kufans, partisans of Ali ibn abi Talib as the rightful successor of the prophet, symbolized their political rejection of the Umayyad by clinging to the recital of ibn Masud from the prophet. Ibn Ziyad, Al-Hajjaj's predecessor, would for example provoke the Kufans by reciting suras 113 and 114 in prayer, as it is known that ibn Masud had not included them in his compilation. Al-Hajjaj was even bolder in his provocations. He would mock and discredit ibn Masud as well as his recital
"How I wonder about Ibn Masud! He claimed to have read the [original] Quran of God. I swear by God that it is just a piece of rajaz poetry of the Bedouins".
Al-Hajjaj also reportedly said
"Ibn Masud is the chief of hypocrites. If I had lived in the same time as his, I would have soaked the ground with his blood ’”.
He would often threaten the Kufans should they not cease following the reading of ibn Masud (Asim ibn Bahdala). His hatred for his Kufan enemies, whose recital according to ibn Masud continuously symbolized the rejection of the Umayyad caliphate, was such that Al-Hajjaj swore that he would erase this reading from the mushaf
"even if it would be with a rib of a swine".
But because he could not do so, as he knew it would be tantamount to rejecting the Quran itself, what he did instead is conducting a major standardization project of the Quranic text. Only then, would he be able to exclude ibn Masud's reading in some instances from the skeletal text.
The initiative was supported by the central government in Damascus. Al-hajjaj selected memorizers, readers, gramarians and scribes from Basra only. Just as Uthman before him used as a blueprint AbuBakr's collection that was in Hafsa's hands, al-Hajjaj used the private mushaf of Uthman, which was then in the possession of the family of Uthman (Al-Baqillani). And, just like his predecessor, as the work of the project approached its end, al-Hajjaj destroyed the texts in circulation that differed from the Uthmanic recension. Of course he did not miss the occasion to destroy ibn Masud's copy so as to progressively make the people forget his reading. This however did not work as his reading, going back to the prophet, is still known today. It is none other than the reading of Aasim through ibn Masud from the prophet. The great reciter Aasim had preserved 2 readings from the prophet. Al-Hajjaj obviously knew he needed to do more to make the people forget the reading of ibn Masud. His standardized text did not allow the reading of ibn Masud, just as today for example one reading the Hafs text does not allow for other authentic readings, because its vowelization and dotting corresponds to strictly one reading. Al-Hajjaj then decreed that in the mosques of the major cities one was only allowed to recite from the new codices. Malik ibn Anas said
"The recitation of the Quran from the mushaf was not an old tradition among the people. The first to introduce it was al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf".
However, even on this point, he was unsuccessful. Especially in the anti-Umayyad city of Kufa where people would not give credit to their enemy by using his text.
In this atmosphere of hatred between the 2 camps, Shiites and Umayyads, al-Hajjaj could have never done the slightest alteration to the text itself and go unnoticed. The rejection of al-Hajjaj's compilation was never due to his changing or corruption of the text. None of his numerous enemies, let alone the other Muslims spread all over the territories on whom he had no jurisdiction, ever accused him of corruption. All that al-Hajjaj did to the Uthmanic text was adding sura titles, sura and paragraph divisions, dotting on certain similar looking consonants. In a tradition going back to Yahya ibn abi Kathir (d 129/747)
"The Quran was bare [of all diacritics] in the masahif. The points on the ya and ta were the first points to have been introduced. They said: ‘It does not go against the Quran. It will make the text of the Quran clearer ’”.
The introduction of diacritical points in the text was an innovation, although dotting was already practiced in pre-Islamic times. The first compilers of the Quran simply chose not to use dots so as to secure the text in a double preservation method. None would be able to correctly read it without being first introduced to the proper recital.
Al-Hajjaj further comissioned the assembly to count the verses, words and consonants. The differences in figures that came to us were due to whether the vowelized script was included in the counting or not. Different readings could also result in a different count, or whether the basmalla was included as part of the suras or not. All the numbers are very close, except in ibn Masud's count. Clearly in that case, a copyist error reported some 40.000 consonants and 500 word differences with the other counts. Had such a Quran been in circulation the Muslim word would have known it, even more so al-Hajjaj and his partisans who had every reason to discredit it.
