Islam critiqued on the lookout; Where are the stoning and suckling verses?

In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"

As regards the stoning verse, Umar doesnt argue it was part, or should have been part of the Quran. He simply laments that people might forget or neglect the command, precisely because of it not being in the Quran. The mere statement that "I read it" does not indicate he read it as part of the Quran left by the prophet. Some prophetic rulings and prayers were meant to be of temporary application, but they were never meant to be in the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the complete and final version left by the prophet. But anyone could have written those rulings down, just as people recorded non-Quranic utterances of the prophet in his own lifetime. 

The fact that Umar remembered the "stoning verse", as well as other companions the likes of Ubay and Zaid bin Thabit, means that it was never lost. It was memorized and preserved, regardless of whether the written copies of it were all destroyed somehow, including the discarded report stating one written copy in Aisha's house was "eaten by a sheep". Umar and other companions could have simply re-introduced it in their own manuscript at least, had it been meant to be in the Quran. But this never occured, because nobody thought the prophet recited it as part of the Quran. Al Ghamari has rightly observed that what some call the ayat al rajm is not a verse at all, but at most a hadith. When the prophet uttered it, Umar recalls 

"I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said: It was as if the Prophet disliked that".

 In another narration, the Prophet said in response 

"I cannot have it written". 

This desire of Umar to have it written, does not imply "as part of the Quran". Umar wanted it recorded so it can never be forgotten, which the prophet disliked. The only reason is that it could get confused as a Quran verse. And this is exactly what later occured with the proponents of abrogation. Some believed that certain statements were temporary Quran verses, that got abrogated once they saw and heard the final and completed Quran left by the prophet. This notion however isnt established by any prophetic saying. Nowhere does the prophet support the theory of abrogation of a Quran verse by another, nor does he hint to it. Other misunderstandings might be due to words of prayers which the prophet recited and that were thought to be Quran verses, until they saw that the prophet did not instruct them to be part of the final version. Even today, in the daily prayers and many other rituals, Muslims recite words that arent from the Quran. 

Again, none ever argued that these verses were missing from the Quran which the prophet left, just that they were abrogated. In addition, the prophet did sometimes speak revelation, which he paraphrased and that were never meant to be in the Quran, known later as hadith qudsi. Some early believers might have included them in their personal recitations, just as others would include personal notes in relation to certain passages, and even words of prayers and supplications. 

A typical such example is that of Ubayy' ibn Kaab's supposed 2 missing chapters, al-Hafd and al-Khalaa, which were in fact supplications the prophet used to recite and never ordered them written as part of the Quran, neither did Ubayy claim anything of the sort. That later people believed them to be so is no proof of anything. Ubayy was part of the standardization comitee under Uthman. Uthman himself is reported to have recited these supposed "lost surahs" as a supplication in his prayers (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, n°7032). 

The prophet allowed, under his watch, for the companions to freely paraphrase, add or substract to certain Quran passages during their supplications. The prophet himself did so, sometimes merging different suras together for supplication 

"When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) went to his mattress each night, he joined the palms of his hands, then breathed into them and recited into them: “Say: ‘He is Allah, One [qul Huwa'llahu Ahad]!' (Al-Qur'an;112:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of the Daybreak [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq]!' (Al-Qur'an;113:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of humankind [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbi’n-nas]!' (Al-Qur'an;114:1)". 

Neither the prophet nor the companions said that these recitals were to be passed on as Quran readings. Here is another example with sura ikhlas 

"Mihjan bin Al-Adra' narrated to him that the Messenger of Allah entered the masjid and there was a man who had finished his prayer and he was reciting the tashahhud. He said: "Allahumma inni as'aluka ya Allah! Bi-annakal-Wahidul-Ahad us-Samad, alladhi lam yalid wa lam yowled, wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad, an taghfirali dhunubi, innaka antal-Ghafurur-Rahim".

The prophet forbade his contemporaries from recording from him anything other than the Quran, precisely to limit or stop this phenomenon 

"Do not write down anything of me...whoever writes other thn the Quran should delete it".

 This shows that the prophet was reacting to an already existing trend among certain believers. But the consensus of the community, given the mass transmission of the Quran, always prevailed over these marginal opinions. Another such issue is that of the verse on the 10 sucklings, later reduced to 5 sucklings and finally abrogated shortly before the prophet's death. The abrogation and death of the prophet happened so close to oneanother that some people still were unaware of the final version of the Quran, and were still reciting the abrogated verse. One cannot but wonder how close to his death did this occur considering that the same hadith books say that Gabriel reviewed the entire recitation of the Quran with the prophet twice the year he passed away, without any reported change between the recitations. This contradicts the notion that a Quran containing the abrogated verse was in circulation until very close to his death to the point that some were still reciting the abrogated verse after his death. The simple explanation for such a report would be that, again some people among the vast cluster of tribes spread throughout the peninsula that adopted Islam by the time of the prophet's death, may have confused a ruling never meant to be part of the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the final version, before they were corrected. These individual errors and confusions have nothing to do with the issue of Quran authenticity. The hadith itself says they were corrected in their recital, meaning the true and final Quran left by the prophet was present among the people 

"Then, when Allah’s Messenger died these words were among what was recited in the Qur’an" 

Another important thing to note is that the compilers of the Quran after the prophet's death, included even verses they deemed abrogated based on the fact that they were part of the final recital they heard from the prophet 

"Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to `Uthman bin `Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" `Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place". 

Abrogation was thus not a criteria for the compilers, rather the last prophetic recital was. Had the prophet recited what is stated about the 5 sucklings, it would have been integrated in its precisely defined place.

We do not have competing texts that sprung up after the prophet, as was the case with the Judeo-christian scriptures until very late in their finalization process. What is also important to note is that Aisha in that hadith doesnt quote the prophet. She might have been quoting someone else or reporting what some people thought.

Similarly we read that

"‘Umar found a Mushaf (manuscript) with a boy wherein it was written, ‘the prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and he is a father to them, and his wives are their mothers.’ He said, ‘Erase it O boy!’ The boy replied, ‘By Allah I will not erase it and it is so in the Mushaf of Ubayy bin Ka’b.’ So ‘Umar went to Ubayy bin Ka’b". There Ubayy replied; "[Occupation with] Qur’an causes me the lapse as you are caused a lapse by the noise in the markets …"

So even the renouned Ubay could make an error in his own reading and text. He admits to the correct reading by acknowledging his error. Years later, he was part of the committee charged with supervising the standardization of the Quran. This error he made while writing 33:6 isnt found in any of the manuscripts he was in charge of, meaning he had agreed with the correction years before. Other important issues often missed by those approaching hadith literature and wanting to draw quick conclusions, and which are probably forever lost, are the intricacies of the context of a hadith, as with any discussion between individuals. It is possible for example that during a recital, the prophet broke up his recitation in the midst and gave an explanation which some might have thought to be actually part of the Quran.

Aisha once asked her scribe to add "and the asr prayer" or according to Tabari "and it is the asr" in the known verse

2:238"Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer [and it is the Asr] and stand obedient to Allah".

A similar report is attributed to Hafsa. The verse was known unanimously in the time of Aisha, who quotes it as is known today. She might have wanted to add in her own personal manuscript, an exegesis the prophet had made while commenting on the verse and which Aisha wrongly thought was part of it. It is interesting to note that we find the same type of elaboration in the following hadith

"We were in the company of the Prophet on the day (of the battle) of al-Khandaq. The Prophet said, "May God fill their graves and houses with fire, as they have kept us so busy (in battle) that we could not offer the middle prayer till the sun had set; and it is the 'asr prayer".

The last part is supposed to be an insertion by the prophet, although it obviously runs against the flow of the speech. It could have been an addition by the narrator the same way the addition in 2:238 is attributed to the prophet. As already noted, some others might mix up a prophet's hadith with the Quran even though it remained orally transmitted. Then they might imagine it to be part of a larger sura. For example, the statement attributed to Ubayy ibn Kaab where he speaks of a verse he heard the prophet recite from sura 98 

"If the son of Adam had a valley of wealth..". 

The "verse" clearly has hadith wording and expressions not found in the Quran (yahudiyyah, nasraniyyah and hanifiyyah etc). Besides, this "verse" is found in ibn Majah solely as a hadith, without any mention of sura 98. We also find many ahadith where the prophet recites sura 98 to Ubayy without any mention of the missing "verse". Some might remember a particular verse in a flawed manner, or even mix up several verses together and think that they were orinally as they remembered. For example Maslamah ibn Khalid al Ansari claimed 2 verses were absent from the Quran, which clearly seem to be 8:74 and 32:17 joined together.

Even AbuBakr and ibn Abbas once recited 50:19 and 90:1 respectively slightly differently than is found in the Uthmanic recension. But witnesses stated they heard them at other occasions reciting with the same wording that has reached us. They, like any other companion, and the prophet himself, were of course not immune to momentary memory lapses.

All these cases, again, are irrelevant in regards to the question of preservation of the Quran. In each case, as it occured even to the prophet himself when he had a memory lapse, the consensus of the community was thereto safeguard the correct transmission.

There are other relevant things to consider when evaluating such reports. Including, the many known motivations to forge ahadith, their language and various versions of the same hadith with extra information, or the weakness of a reporter.

Hadith interpretation is a delicate science and Muslims never take any report for granted simply because it is compiled in a book deemed "authentic". No human being is faultless, except the prophets who were preserved in a single aspect; receiving, communicating and practicing the divine revelation. In fact the prophet himself stated that

"lies will spread after me, so whatever hadith comes to you compare it with the Book of God".

Content of a report thus supersedes even the reliability of the transmitters.

Islam critiqued may want to dig deeper; what about al-Hajjaj?

In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"

As shown in the previous video, anyone claiming alterations in the Quran under Uthman, would be at variance with the most elementary reasoning. Some critics nevertheless insist, based on 2 traditions, that al Hajjaj completely altered the Uthman recension and was thus responsible for the transmission and dissemination of an altered Quran. These claims are based on 1 Muslim report, from Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud, and 1 Christian report, based on an exchange of letters between the Ummayad Caliph Umar II and the Byzantine Emperor Leo III. The Christian report is irrelevant due to its failing to pass the authentication criteria. The report from ibn Abi Dawud similarily fails in that regard. But besides the known weakness of that report, what refutes these claims is that all the Arabic actually says is that al-Hajjaj made 11 LETTER changes to Uthman's Quran. 

The report then follows, not by showing what these textual alterations are but by giving the reporter's RECITAL compared to al-Hajjaj's recital. These changes arent therefore textual but pertaining to the Qiraat/recitation methods. Both these recitals are in fact mutawattir/authenticated and going back to the prophet.

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 repdecessor, 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 accuse 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.

Islam critiqued still disputes; Uthman powerful enough to alter Quran?

In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"

An important thing to note here is that 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 their 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.

Islam critiqued is interested; Zayd ibn Thabit's role in writing the Quran?

In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"

Zayd ibn Thabit was the main scribe along with several other prominent Qurayshis tasked by Uthman to compile the Quran in book form. The same Zaid Ibn Thabit was involved with the collection during Abu Bakr's time as well, collecting the revelation in the form of suhuf or loose pages, from both oral as well as written sources that were in the prophet's house. Zayd remembered how

"the prophet was taken from this life while the Quran had not yet been gathered into a book".

The use of "gathered" instead of "written" is significant as it proves its existence in written form, although scattered on different supports. Zaid, after gathering all that was physically available, then demanded two witnesses for each piece, attesting to its oral transmission. Here Zaid was just following the prophet's dual authentication method, oral/textual. It is to be noted, none, not even the prophet himself as attested in the traditions, is able to recite flawlessly from memory each and every time. That is why the Quran was transmitted through massive consensus, with reciters and laymen checking one another for errors, in addition strengthening the transmission process using their physical copies.

To corroborate this great care in performing the task entrusted to him, there are at least 2 recorded incidents where Zayd would not validate a verse despite knowing it by heart from the prophet's mouth, until he found it in written form between the hands of a reliable believer. This was the case concerning the last 2 verses of sura tawba/bara'a, known and cross checked through the memory of several reciters including Zayd, and yet he would not include it in the text unless corroborated by a written copy. Once the unique hard copy of 9:128-129 was found between the hands Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari it confirmed what the comitee of compilers, including  Umar, Uthman, Zaid and Ubay bin Kaab had already memorized and were looking for in the first place. There has never been any doubt across the spectrum of Islamic sects as to the authenticity of these 2 verses.

This authentication process was even more stringent than the one the other religious texts (hadith, tafsir, fiqh etc.) would later be put through, which already is in itself a method unsurpassed in the world for any other document, let alone religious. This is how serious, meticulous and careful Zayd was in accomplishing his mission

"By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur’an".

Zayd is here speaking retrospectively and implying how the successfully completed task was a heavy duty obviously hard to accomplish considering the level of care he had imposed upon himself. 

This highly noble assignment, entrusted to the young Zayd, did cause resentment among some of the older companions, the most vocal of whom was Abdullah ibn Masud. That resentment was further fueled by the fact ibn Masud had to give up his own personal mushaf. The early Muslims held their Quran writings in high esteem, and ibn Masud compiled his own in greater part based on the recitation learned from the prophet in person. But he now had to give it up in favor of Zayd's approved standardized rasm/orthography. Zayd's compilation was superior to ibn Masud in that its rasm could absorb many potential qiraat while the scripts of the individual copies held by Muslims could not be read in all qiraat. 

It is only natural that he, out of pride, would hold on to his "superior" mushaf and by the same token try and discredit Zayd 

"'O you Muslim people! I am removed from recording the transcription of the Mushaf and it is overseen by a man, by Allah, when I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man' - meaning Zaid bin Thabit - and it was regarding this that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-'Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement (3:161). So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" Az-Zuhri said: "It was conveyed to me that some men amongst the most virtuous of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah disliked that view of Ibn Mas'ud". 

In this correct rendition of Az-Zuhri's report in Jami' al Tirmidhi, not the misleading translation often used among Islam critics ("Avoid copying the Mushaf and the recitation of this man") several important things transpire. Firstly, the leading companions disapproved of that selfish, prideful stand from ibn Masud. Second, what ibn Masud really resented was not Zayd's capabilities. Rather it was Uthman's decision not to appoint him instead of Zaid as leader of the 2nd committee for the compilation. Al Asqalani discusses that particular point, saying ibn Masud simply was absent from Medina when Uthman urgently appointed the committee. He was in Kufah. Furthermore, because Uthman did nothing more than reproduce the pages compiled under Abu Bakr into one mushaf, and that Zayd Ibn Thabit had already been among the top scribes charged of that compilation, then it was natural to designate him to lead that 2nd compilation. 

The other issue ibn Masud had was in giving up his precious mushaf, which he was emotionally attached to 

"whenever the prophet and Jibril finished reciting to eachother, i would recite to the prophet as well and he would inform me that my recitation was eloquent". 

As already pointed, Zayd was already entrusted with a similar task under Abu Bakr and ibn Masud didnt voice any objection then, as he was now doing under Uthman. Uthman chose Zayd for his experience under Abu Bakr. Despite his initial opposition, ibn Masud eventually understood Uthman's plan and agreed with his effort, surrendering his personal mushaf. As later attested by ibn Qurazi, the mushaf of ibn Masud which he used for recitation and teaching was no different, including in its sura sequence, than the ones of Ubayy and Zaid ibn Thabit. The names of his most illustrious pupils and their transmission of the entire 114 suras of the Quran is also known, names like Alqama, al Aswad, Masruq and many others. 

The spurious reports by the historians, saying Uthman ordered the beating of ibn Masud are "fabrications" according to ibn al Arabi and some of the "most well known lies" according to al Dhahabi. The reality is that despite temporary tensions, Uthman and ibn Masud had high regard for one another, with Uthman even leading the funeral prayer at ibn Masud's death in Medina (ibn Saad/Tabaqat).

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 clarify the right pronunciation. 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.’ ”.

Obviously no companion, including Umar ibn al khattab, the 2nd Caliph, quoted above, mastered all the qiraat/recitation types at once. But what is clear is that the companions were on the lookout for the slightest unapproved variant in recital. 

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.

The standardized written Qurans were thus sent to different parts of the Caliphate. They ranged from 4 to 9 according to different narrations (al-Ya'qubi,al-Suyuti,al-Jawzi,al-Salih) and were sent to Kufa, Basra, Mecca, Syria, Bahrein, Yemen, Egypt, al-Jazirah and Medina along with a qari to demonstrate the correct reading to the people who obviously were in vast majority illiterate. These Qurans were copied and spread to Muslims throughout the Islamic territories. Compare this effort by the compilers of the Quran, just 10 years following the prophet's death, in making the text as readily accessible to as many people, to the Church effort in locking the language of the Bible into Latin for a 1000 years so as to purposefully prevent the common people from accessing it by themselves.

But even after Uthman, additional work had to be done on the Quran script to make it easier to read for both Arabs and non Arabs Muslims who werent familiar with Quran recitation. As shown earlier, the first compilations of the Quran were written in a defective script, lacking vowels and dotting. This wasnt a problem to those that already knew the proper recitation but could confuse the others. Steps were thus taken to gradually improve the orthography, by adding vowels and dots. Ibn Umar (73/692) disliked the additions; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Quran as received from the Prophet, and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslim world.

With the last mushaf written and sent to the distant provinces, while a copy remained in Medina to serve as a blueprint for further copies, the original scattered and partial pieces of written Quranic text in the hands of the Muslims had served their purpose of being a secondary preservation method next to the memorization, and could now be safely discarded and burned. Once again, not because there were competing traditions and texts, but because, in light of parallel evidence provided by multiple memorizers, they were incomplete, or erroneous. The miraculous preservation of the Quran isnt undermined by the presence of scribal errors, which is inevitable, but whether the entire written text is lost from the hands and especially the memories of the community, which has never happened as it did with the Biblical tradition several times over. In addition to the imperfections that prompted the destruction of those personal copies, even those texts in Muslim hands that were correct prior to Uthman's standardization, their basic script did not integrate the multiple qiraat/recitals. The whole idea behind Uthman's compilation effort was to standardize the written text in a manner that could facilitate its reading depending on one's recitation. 

No written text prior to his, integrated as many potential recitations in its skeletal structure. That is the truth about the whole mountain of conspiration created by Islam's misleading critics, seizing upon this opportunity which no Muslim ever protested against, to build their baseless charges against the Quran's authenticity. Scholars contemporary to Uthman, such as Abu ad-darda' made comparative studies between the mushaf of Medina and the others. The findings revealed no variation in the skeletal structure but a total of 40 single letters differences scattered over 6 mushafs. 

These 6 mushafs were not private copies based on the ones approved and sent by Uthman, but were the very ones compiled under his watch then dispatched throughout the Muslim territories. This shows that these variants were known and approved. The compilers might have left them in because they agreed with the authenticated prophetic qiraat. This is the view of al Dani who stated that because Uthman could not accommodate all the qiraat in a single mushaf, he spread them throughout the masahif. Although the Medina mushaf was lost during the unrest that followed Uthman's assassination, based on the comparative notes left by the scholars that studied it, the present day Quran is in perfect congruence with what has been transmitted to us from the Medina mushaf.