The Qur'an and Its Study. Adnan Zarzour
as to serve as the work of reference to ensure the correct reading, or to endorse it. This was necessary because of the disputes that arose in those provinces about various readings, some of which went beyond the conditions of acceptability.
Some scholars state there were seven copies, whilst others say there were only five. Ibn Abī Dāwūd relates on the authority of Ḥamzah al-Zayyāt: ‘‘Uthmān wrote four copies and sent one to Kufah. It was with a man from Murād, and I wrote my own copy from it.’ Ibn Abī Dāwūd said: ‘I heard Abū Ḥāmid al-Sijistānī as he said: He wrote seven copies and sent one each to Makkah, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Basrah and Kufah, retaining one in Madinah.’127
4.4 Finally, what clearly asserts ‘Uthmān’s main focus as being to ensure the correct reading of the Qur’an, so as to put an end to any odd reading or pronunciation, was that he sent with every copy an instructor to teach people how to read the Qur’an according to that copy. He sent ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Sā’ib to Makkah, al-Mughīrah ibn Shihāb to Syria, Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī to Kufah, ‘Āmir ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Qays al-‘Anbarī to Basrah, and he ordered Zayd ibn Thābit to stay in Madinah and teach people there.
When we consider all this evidence, and consider the dates of the collation of the Qur’an, its copying and documenting of the same, we have to conclude that the process attained the highest possible degree of accuracy and perfection. This was the required service Muslims gave to God’s book about which God says: ‘No falsehood can ever touch it openly or in a stealthy manner’ (41: 42). ‘It is We Ourselves who have bestowed this reminder from on High, and it is We Who shall preserve it intact’ (15: 9).
5. The Burning of Other Scrolls and Documents: Misconceptions and Refutation
‘Uthmān then ordered that whatever else was kept of the Qur’an in a scroll or a collection should be burnt or torn into pieces. He felt that no delay should be allowed in this for two reasons: the disputes that had erupted about different readings and the great care that had been exercised in the collation of Abū Bakr’s copy which was retained by Ḥafṣah, the Mother of the Believers.
Those Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who had their own collections carried out the Caliph’s order and burnt their scrolls or other writings of the Qur’an, except for ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd who was incensed by their agreement and urged some to refuse as he himself refused to burn his collection. Ibn Abī Dāwūd relates in Al-Maṣāḥif that ‘‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd was unhappy that Zayd had been chosen to copy the Qur’an. He appealed to the people: “How is it that I am not in this task when it is given to a man [i.e. Zayd] who was still unborn to a father who was an unbeliever when I adopted Islam? People of Iraq, keep the copies that you have and hide them... You may meet God on the Day of Judgement holding your copies”’ Al-Zuhrī said: ‘I have been told that Ibn Mas‘ūd’s words were not welcomed as it referred to some good Companions of the Prophet.’128 (This is also related by al-Tirmidhī in a Hadith that is classified as mursal, which is one type of Hadiths considered poor in authenticity).
That ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd was angry at not sharing in this noble and historical assignment is understandable. Those Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who undertook the task were, as it were, the tools of the fulfilment of God’s guarantee to keep the Qur’an intact. However, his anger should not have gone as far as criticising Zayd ibn Thābit, as stated in this questionable report. Zayd was a scribe, writing revelations during the Prophet’s lifetime, and no one can be criticised for performing this honourable assignment. Furthermore, some scholars maintain that Zayd had memorised the Qur’an in full during the Prophet’s lifetime. As such, he had learnt more of it than Ibn Mas‘ūd who had learnt more than seventy surahs during the Prophet’s lifetime but learnt the rest after the Prophet (peace be upon him) had passed away.129 Others who memorised the Qur’an in full during the Prophet’s lifetime included Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal, Abū al-Dardā’, and the Prophet’s two wives, Ḥafṣah and ‘Ā’ishah.
What may be said for certain in this respect is that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd was upset and that he urged others to keep their copies. Criticising Zayd in such a way was not reported by al-Bukharī and Muslim in their authentic anthologies. Muslim relates on the authority of Shaqīq that Ibn Mas‘ūd said: ‘Whose reading are you ordering me to follow? I read more than seventy surahs, learning them directly from the Prophet. His Companions know that I am the top in my learning of God’s book.’ Al-Bukharī’s version does not even refer to urging anyone to hide their copies. He relates a Hadith with a different chain of transmission that also quotes Shaqīq: ‘‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd addressed us and said: I have taken directly from the Prophet’s mouth more than seventy surahs. The Prophet’s Companions know that my knowledge of God’s book is among the best of them, although I am not the best.’130
Ibn Abī Dāwūd also mentions another report in his book, Al-Maṣāḥif, which does not include the above criticism of Zayd. It only quotes him as saying: ‘How can they ask me to follow Zayd ibn Thābit’s reading when I had learnt more than seventy surahs directly from the Prophet’s mouth, when Zayd was still coming with other kids, and having two plaits of hair...’.131
From another point of view, Zayd was not known to have selected or favoured a particular reading, as did ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd. The question at this stage was the standardisation of pronunciation and the ending of disputes about how to read the Qur’an. No one disputes Ibn Mas‘ūd’s reading, or what he learnt directly from the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught others among his Companions other forms, as we shall discuss in Chapter 9. Otherwise, the committee was assigned the task of copying the collated master copy, not to start collating it afresh, as suggested by some reports that are lacking in authenticity.132
This means that there were no pressing reasons to assign the task to Ibn Mas‘ūd or to await his return from Kufah. Ibn Ḥajar said: ‘‘Uthmān was fully justified as he was doing this task in Madinah, while ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd was in Kufah at the time. ‘Uthmān did not wish to delay the work until he had sent someone to call him back. Furthermore, ‘Uthmān only wanted to copy the master copy that was collated during Abū Bakr’s reign. That was done by Zayd ibn Thābit, who had written Qur’anic revelations as they were given. As such, he had advantage over many others.’ In fact, all members of that committee had their advantages.
Be that as it may, when his anger subsided and the shock effect dissipated, and perhaps after he looked at what the committee had done with the copy sent to Kufah, ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd burnt his own copy, endorsing what the rightly-guided Caliph, ‘Uthmān, had done. This is confirmed by Ibn Abū Dāwūd, the author of Al-Maṣāḥif, under the special subheading: ‘‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd’s satisfaction with ‘Uthmān’s copying of the Qur’an’. Note, too, it was Ibn Abī Dāwūd who had reported Ibn Mas‘ūd’s initial anger.133
False Allegations of Distortion
Some followers of extremist ideologies and people of ulterior motives allege that ‘Uthmān was keen to burn other copies in order that the changes he introduced into the Qur’anic text would not be known. When we bear in mind all that we have discussed on the writing down of the Qur’an and the meticulous approach taken in its collation during Abu Bakr’s reign, and then in making its copies during ‘Uthmān’s reign, we realise how flimsy these allegations are. However, a few points need to be stated.
5.1 Had the burning of sheets and collections of Qur’anic writings meant to conceal any changes introduced, or distortions perpetrated, or omissions made, etc. it should have been done at the time of the master copy’s collation during Abū Bakr’s time. In the intervening years between these two occasions, most reciters and memorisers of the Qur’an, including some who had their own private collections, travelled to different provinces and taught the Qur’an to their peoples. Numerous such people learnt from them. Yet none of these teachers or their students ever made such allegations. The very order to burn the other collections refutes such allegations. Neither Abū Bakr nor ‘Umar ordered