The Qur'an and Its Study. Adnan Zarzour
This was when Ḥudhayfah realised that a major problem could ensue and warned the Caliph about it. Hence, ‘Uthmān took the measures he took, confirming that the reading and pronunciation must be standardised through such a collective effort, one that matched what was written with what was memorised, and taking into account all pronunciations and variants.
The reasons for ‘Uthmān’s action occurred during his reign, not earlier. Had there been any reason for introducing any alleged changes or distortions, it should have happened during Abū Bakr’s reign. The fact is that no one introduced any change or omission and those who make such allegations are indeed liars. They are of two types: either hypocrites who never actually believed in Islam and wanted to undermine it, or others who hate the Qur’an, Arabs, Islam, the great Caliphs and the noble Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
5.2 Had ‘Uthmān left out any part of the Qur’an, whether related to ‘Alī or to someone else, or indeed to any matter, he would have faced an outcry by all those who knew the Qur’an by heart, and there were a great many such people.134 How could the absence of such objections be explained unless someone alleges that all those memorisers who belonged to the Muhājirīn and the Anṣār, whether living in Madinah or settled in different areas of the vast Muslim state, had shared in such distortion and agreed to conceal it? Such absurdity is countered by many questions: why would they do so? How would they so do? Why did neither ‘Alī nor any of the Prophet’s other Companions voice any objection? The Qur’an consists of 114 surahs, all of which, except Surah 9, start with the words ‘In the name of God, the Lord of Grace, the Ever-Merciful’. So why did the Prophet’s Companions recite this phrase at the beginning of 113 surahs, feeling nothing wrong with its repetition, omit to include it in Surah 9? The answer is simply because they did not hear the Prophet (peace be upon him) reciting it at the beginning of this particular surah. Can anyone imagine that those people, who were absolutely meticulous in their work, would deliberately distort the Qur’an, add to it or even omit from it? To believe so is nothing less than absurd, it smacks of disbelief and outright ignorance.
5.3 ‘Uthmān returned the master copy, collated during Abū Bakr’s reign to Ḥafṣah who had kept it after her father’s death. This was a spontaneous action that confirms the absence of any alteration made to the Qur’an. It also demonstrates that the idea of making any alteration did not even occur to ‘Uthmān or indeed to any of the Prophet’s Companions. Had there been any change, would he have returned the master copy? Would it not have been the first to be burnt? As we have said earlier, no one ever objected to what Abū Bakr did.
5.4 In all that has been reported of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s disagreement, he only objected to being required to follow the pronunciation or reading variants that were included in ‘Uthmān’s copies, or according to Zayd ibn Thābit’s reading, as he put it. This he found difficult because he had learnt the Qur’an from the Prophet’s mouth, as he used to say.135 Nor did he object to the order of the surahs in the copies made under ‘Uthmān. As we have observed, the question here was that of standardisation to end disputes. It was not for Ibn Mas‘ūd to require the committee to adopt his reading, and indeed the committee is not reported to have favoured any particular reading. Thus, Ibn Mas‘ūd’s only objection was that the Qur’an was written according to Zayd’s reading, and not his own. Ibn Abī Dāwūd relates with a sound chain of transmission: ‘Ibn Mas‘ūd gave a speech and said: “Conceal your collections of the Qur’an. How can they require me to read according to Zayd ibn Thābit’s reading when I have learnt from the Prophet’s own mouth more than seventy surahs, when Zayd used to come with the boys, having two plaits of hair? By God, I know why every part of the Qur’an was revealed. No one knows God’s book better than me, but I am not the best of you. Were I to know of a place where there is better knowledge of God’s book than mine, I would go there.”’136 We also noted that according to Muslim, he said: ‘Whose reading do you want me to follow?’
5.5 It is enough for us to say that a person who makes wild accusations against the whole community of the Prophet’s Companions, including the early Muslims who belonged to both the Muhājirīn and the Anṣār, on the basis of a claim that is clearly refuted by the Qur’an itself, can say whatever he wants. God Himself commends the Prophet’s Companions in several places in the Qur’an.137 Dr Draz said:
Even given the zeal of the first Muslims, who were more ardent than their successors towards the word of God, it is inconceivable to attribute to a mere spirit of conformity the fact that the recension of ‘Uthmān was accepted by everyone without contradiction. Noldeke concludes that one should see in this the best proof that the text ‘was as complete and faithful as one could make it’.138
Leblois has also been able to affirm: ‘The Qur’an is today the only sacred Book which does not present notable variants.’ Muir proclaimed the same before him: ‘The recension of ‘Uthmān has passed from hand to hand to us without alteration. It has been so scrupulously conserved that there are no serious variants (and one could even say that there are none) in the innumerable copies of the Qur’an which circulate within the vast domain of Islam... There has never been anything other than one Qur’an for every faction, however implacable; and this unanimous usage of the same scripture accepted by all up to the present day is one of the unchallengeable proofs of the trustworthiness of the text which we possess.’139
5.6 The attitude of the Imāmī Shī‘ah:
A number of Imamite or Ja‘farī Shī‘ah scholars have expressed the same view. Abū Ja‘far al-Ṭūsī said:
Our belief concerning the amount of the Qur’an, which God the Most High revealed to His Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings be upon him and his family), is that it consists of what has been preserved up to now between the two covers for the use of men, and nothing more. The number of surahs recognised by most Muslims is 114, but according to us surahs 93 and 94 form one surah, and surahs 105 and 106 form another; it is the same with surahs 8 and 9. He who ascribes to us the belief that the Qur’an is more than this is a liar.140
Al-Ṭūsī also said: ‘As for speaking about additions to the Qur’an or omissions from it, we may say that this does not fit. Addition to it is universally agreed to be untrue. Omission is also deemed by Muslims to be untrue. This is what fits with what is authentic in our school of thought, which is supported by al-Murtaḍā, as is clearly apparent in various reports.’141
Al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq said: ‘Our belief is that the Qur’an revealed by God to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is what is between the two covers, which is the same as what people have today; nothing more. The total number of its surahs that people have is 114. Whoever attributes to us that we say any more is a liar.’142
Anyway, the Imamite Shī‘ah appear to have accepted that the Qur’an is free of distortion and secure against omission and all other forms of alteration and substitution. Khomeini said: ‘Anyone who is well aware of the care Muslims have taken of the collation of the Qur’an and its preservation, in both reading and written forms, knows for certain that such an allegation is false. All reports that they cite in support of their claims are either poor in authenticity and, as such, cannot be accepted as evidence, or clearly fabricated, or strange and unacceptable. What is authentic of such reports is concerned only with the interpretation of the Qur’anic text. Distortion crept into this, but not into the text and wording of the Qur’an itself.’143 He then added: ‘The Noble Book is exactly what is between the two covers, with no addition or omission.’144
It may sound very strange then that Khomeini praises in great terms al-Nūrī al-Ṭubrusī describing him as ‘a devout, learned, ascetic, scholar of Fiqh and Hadith, Mirzā Husayin al-Nūrī, may God enlighten his blessed grave’.145 What is strange is that this same Ṭubrusī asserts that the Qur’an was subjected to much distortion. One wonders whether what Khomeini said about the Qur’an was a resort to taqiyyah, which is a method that allows a person to say what pleases his listeners even though he does not believe it. What we say is that only God knows inner feelings and beliefs. For our part, we take people’s statements, whether spoken or written, as correct.
On