Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Ibn Mas'ud's Qur'anic text omitted surah al-Fatiha and the mu'awwithatayni (surahs 113 and 114).<ref name="Itqan ibn Masud">"''Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient books that Ibn Mas'ud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the Mu'awwithatayni are part of the Qur'an are embarrassing in their implications... But the Qadi Abu Bakr said "It is not soundly reported from him that they are not part of the Qur'an and there is no record of such a statement from him. He omitted them from his manuscript as he did not approve of their being written. This does not mean he denied they were part of the Qur'an. In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be inscribed in the text (mushaf) unless so commanded by the Prophet (saw) ... and he had not heard that it had been so commanded.''" - as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.186</ref>   

{{Bukhari|6|60|468}} and {{Muslim|4|1799}} both record that Ibn Mas'ud's followers were adamant that he and Muhammad had read {{Quran|92|3}} with the words, ''By the male and the female.'' rather than ''And by Him Who created male and female.''

{{Quran|2|275}} begins with the words ''Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna'', meaning "those who devour usury will not stand". Ibn Mas'ud's text had the same introduction but after the last word there was added the expression ''yawmal qiyaamati'', that is, they would not be able to stand on the "Day of Resurrection".  

 

{{Quran|5|89}}, in the standard text, contains the exhortation ''fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin'', meaning "fast for three days". Ibn Mas'ud's text had, after the last word, the adjective ''mutataabi'aatin'', meaning three "successive" days.<ref>As can be seen on [https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/5/vers/89 Corpus Coranicum]</ref>

The Qur'an we have today was rejected by Ibn Masud, whom the prophet of Islam himself approved of. This tells us that the Qur'an we have is not the word of Allah.

===The lost verse on stoning===

The lost verse of Rajm ([[stoning]]) was originally found in Surah al-Ahzab<ref>"''Umar said to me ‘How many verses are contained in the chapter of al-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘72 or 73 verses.’ He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 verses, and in it there was the verse of stoning.''" - Al-Muttaqi ‘Ali bin Husam al-Din in his book “Mukhtasar Kanz al-’Ummal” printed on the margin of Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 2, page 2, in his hadith about chapter 33</ref>. According to hadiths recorded in Al-Suyuti's Itqan the lost verse read, "The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise,", or alternatively, "A married man or woman should be stoned, without hesitation, for having given in to lust." <ref>As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524 (or p.13 of the chapter on Nasikh and Mansukh in the abridged English translation of Al-Itqan by Muneer Fareed)</ref>

This verse, along with verses regarding [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Adult_Suckling adult suckling], were written on a piece of paper and were lost when a sheep or goat ate them.<ref>“''It was narrated that 'Aishah said: The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.''” {{Ibn Majah||3|9|1944}} (Graded Hasan by Dar-us-Salam). Also found in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13</ref> The loss of the stoning verse is confirmed by Caliph Umar in [[sahih]] hadith in which this verse is said to have been included in the book "sent down" to Muhammad, "the Book of Allah".<ref>"''...Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession....''" - {{Muslim|17|4194}}</ref> In another sahih hadith appearing in many collections<ref>"''Abu Huraira and Zaid b Khalid al-Juhani reported that one of the desert tribes came to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah, I beg of you in the name of Allah that you pronounce judgment about me according to the Book of Allah. The second claimant who was wiser than him said: Well, decide amongst us according to the Book of Allah, but permit me (to say something). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon ham) said: Say. He said: My son was a servant in the house of this person and he committed adultery with his wife. I was informed that my son deserved stoning to death (as punishment for this offence). I gave one hundred goats and a slave girl as ransom for this. I asked the scholars (if this could serve as an expiation for this offence). They informed me that my son deserved one hundred lathes and exile for one year. and this woman deserved stoning (as she was married). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him) said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life. I will decide between you according to the Book of Allah. The slave-girl and the goats should be given back, and your son is to be punished with one hundred lashes and exile for one year. And, O Unais (b. Zuhaq al-Aslami), go to this woman in the morning, and if she makes a confession, then stone her. He (the narrator) said: He went to her in the morning and she made a confession. And Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) made pronouncement about her and she was stoned to death.''" {{Muslim|17|4209}}</ref>, Muhammad says he will judge a married woman who committed adultery with an unmarried man by "the Book of Allah" (meaning the Qur'an<ref>This is clear from the hadith itself, and is also almost always the meaning of "Book of Allah" in other hadiths and verses, including the hadith about Umar and the stoning verse previously mentioned. See for example "'' Narrated `Ikrima: Ibn `Abbas said, "How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah's Book (the Qur'an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?"''" {{Bukhari|9|93|613}}</ref>) and orders the woman to be stoned and the man to receive 100 lashes. Before becoming lost, the verse on adult suckling had already been abrogated and replaced with a watered down version. Evidently it was not very popular, and was resisted by some of Muhammad's wives.<ref>See for example regarding the abrogation {{Muwatta|30|3|17}}, and the displeasure of Muhammad's wives {{Muwatta|30|3|12}}</ref>

Islamic scholars typically explain the loss of the stoning verse as a type of abrogation where the verse is no longer recited but the ruling still applies. Al-Suyuti in his Itqan gives various hadiths in which Muhammad and the Muslim community felt uneasy about writing down, and possibly even reciting such a harsh verse, having witnessed its implementation.<ref>Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an by Al-Suyuti, pp.16-17 of the chapter on Nasikh and Mansukh in the abridged English translation by Muneer Fareed</ref> It seems that as a result even the recitation of the exact wording for this verse was lost over time. Does it make any sense to excuse this clear failure of preservation by calling it abrogation even though the ruling remains, particularly when it involves such a serious topic as a death penalty?

Islamqa.info, the popular fatwah website [https://islamqa.info/en/197942 accepts the hadith] and that the verses were lost on the authority of the scholars. Its isnad was graded by al-Tabari and al-Albani as sahih, even more emphatically by ibn Hazm, “sahih, as clear as the sun” (إسناده صحيح كالشمس), and hasan (good) by ibn Kathir and ibn Hajar.  

We know that, whereas Ibn Mas'ud omitted three surahs (al-Fatihah, 113 and 114) from his Qur'an mashaf (codex), Ubay ibn Ka'b had 116 surahs in his, including two extra short surahs, al-Hafd (the Haste) and al-Khal' (the Separation), which he placed between what are surahs 103 and 104 in Uthman's Qur'an<ref name="Noldeke">Both al-Suyuti's Itqan and ibn Nadim's Fihrist have this sequence in their (otherwise slightly different) lists of the surahs found in Ubay ibn Ka'b's mashaf according to Theodor Nöldeke et. al. (1909, 1919) "The History of the Qur'an" 2nd Edition, Ed. and trans. by Behn W. H. (2013) Brill: Leiden p. 243-244</ref>.

{{Quote|1=|2='''al-Hafd:'''

O Allah, You alone we worship,

to You we pray and prostrate,  

and for Your sake we work and strive.  

 

We hope for Your mercy and fear Your punishment,

for Your punishment will inevitably befall the disbelievers.<BR>

and we praise You and we are not ungrateful to You.  

<ref>A similar English translation (but with the words "O God" accidentally omitted from al-Hafd), together with the Arabic text and textual transmission details can be found in Theodor Nöldeke et. al. (1909, 1919) "The History of the Qur'an" 2nd Edition, Ed. and trans. by Behn W. H. (2013) Brill: Leiden p. 241 Nöldeke considered it unlikely that these two Surahs and Surah al-Fatiha were originally part of the Qur'an.</ref><ref>([http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/ubay.html the Separation])<BR></ref><ref name=SuyutiItqan>al-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.152-153</ref>}}

In form they are du'as (supplications, prayers), much like Al-Fatihah placed at the beginning of the Qur'an, and surahs 113 and 114.

ibn Masud  too included Khal' and Hafd in his Qur'an mashaf (codice)<ref>al-Suyuti in his Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 4 page 421</ref>. As also did Ibn 'Abbas in his mashaf, while Umaya bin Abdullah and Umar recited  them as supplications <ref name=SuyutiItqan></ref>, as did Uthman <ref>according to hadith 7032 in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah</ref>. One hadith says that these were du'as given by the angel Jibreel to Muhammad.<ref>“While the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was supplicating against the Mudhar, Gabriel came to him and signaled him to remain silent, so he became silent. Then Gabriel said, “O Muhammad, Allah has not sent you to disparage or condemn, rather he has sent you as a mercy. And he has not sent you to bring torment. ‘Not for you, [O Muhammad, but for Allah], is the decision whether He should [cut them down] or forgive them or punish them, for indeed, they are wrongdoers.’ [Qur’an 3:128] Then he taught him this supplication, ‘O Allah! We beg help from You alone …’” Sunan al-Kubra, Hadith 3142</ref> Al-Suyuti quotes another scholar saying that Surah al-Khal' and Surah al-Hafd were removed from the Qur'an and are now used as du'as.<ref>"''l-Husain b. 'l-Munadi in his work l-Nasikh wa l-Mansukh said: of the material that was removed from the Qur'an but not from memory are the two chapters of the qunut supplications that are recited in the witr prayer; they were named l-Khal`a and l-Hafd''" p.15 of the chapter on Nasikh and Mansukh in the abridged English translation of Al-Itqan by Muneer Fareed</ref><ref>A longer quote of al-Munadi's words is even more revealing: "''Az-Zarkashi said in al-Burhaan (2/37): The leading hadeeth scholar Abu’l-Husayn Ahmad ibn Ja‘far al-Manaadi said in his book an-Naasikh wa’l-Mansookh, concerning that which has been abrogated from the Qur’an but was not erased from what people had learned by heart, that this included the two soorahs that are recited in Qunoot in Witr prayer. He said: There is no difference of opinion among the earlier scholars that these two soorahs were written down in the mushafs that were attributed to Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, and it was narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he recited them, and they were called the soorahs of al-Khal‘ and al-Hafd.''" https://islamqa.info/en/195880</ref>

It doesn't seem that there was agreement among the Muslims on whether these were just du'as or parts of the Qur'an, particularly given that three such important figures (Ubay ibn Ka'b, ibn Masud and ibn 'Abbas) recorded them in their Qur'an codices.  

Nor does it seem there was complete agreement on whether other surahs that resemble du'as belonged in the written Qur'an given that ibn Masud left out of his mashaf Surahs Al-Fatihah, and 113 and 114 (called Al-Mu'awwidhatan), as mentioned above. Al-Qurtubi's tafsir contains a narration from ibn-Masud that he omitted Al-Fatihah for brevity<ref>“’Abdullah bin Mas’ud was asked as to why he did not write al-Fatiha in his Mushaf. He replied, ‘If I were to write I would write it before every surah.’” Abu Bakr al-Anbari explains this saying every raka’ah (in prayers) starts with al-Fatiha and then another surah is recited. It is as if Ibn Mas’ud said, ‘I have dropped it for the sake of brevity and I have trusted its preservation by Muslims (collectively).’ (al-Qurtubi, al-Jami al-Ahkam al-Qur’an. Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyah, Cairo, 1964 vol.1 p.115)</ref>, and there was a theory to explain his omission of surahs 113 and 114<ref name="Itqan ibn Masud"></ref>. Some Qira'at (recitations of the Qur'an) pass through ibn Masud and include all 3 surahs.  

One apologetics article quotes the 14th century scholar Muhammad Abdul Azim al-Zurqani, who suggested that the companions who included Al-Hafd and Al-Khal' in their Qur'an mashafs were merely noting them down as du'as alongside the Qur'an, and that this had led to the confusion over whether they were considered Qur'anic. But it is a very unlikely theory that all three companions who recorded these surahs in their mashafs would allow such a misunderstanding to occur. We even know from two independent lists that Ubay ibn Ka'b sequenced these two du'as between what are now surahs 103 and 104.<ref name="Noldeke"></ref>

The same article then points to a hadith recorded 9 centuries after Muhammad, which says that Uthman had Ubay ibn Ka'b dictate the text for Zaid to write down, with refinements by Sa’id bin al-‘Aas. The article argues that therefore Ubay must have had no issue with the two extra surahs being left out. Such late evidence is utterly worthless, as well as contradicting sahih hadiths about Zaid's collection process.

Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, one of the early authorities on the Qur'an text and a companion of Muhammad, claimed a surah which resembled at-Tawba (also known as Bara'at) in length and severity was forgotten and lost, but included a passage on the greed of man, which is not in today's Qur'an. Various narrations have slightly differing wording for this lost passage, which is consistent with it being insufficiently remembered.

Ubai said that it was considered as a saying from the Qur'an for a while during Muhammad's lifetime. At best, it could be claimed to be an example of a type of abrogation where the verses are lost. Why the verse would be abrogated is, conveniently, a mystery.

Al-Suyuti records the recollection by Abu Waqid al-Laithii of the occasion when the lost passage about the valleys was revealed. He says that Muhammad claimed it as a revelation from Allah, just like when he received other revelations.<ref>"''Abu Waqid al-Laithii said, "When the messenger of Allah (saw) received the revelation we would come to him and he would teach us what had been revealed. (I came) to him and he said 'It was suddenly communicated to me one day: Verily Allah says, ...''" - As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.525 (or p.13 of the chapter on Nasikh and Mansukh in the abridged English translation of Al-Itqan by Muneer Fareed)</ref>

As demonstrated in the sections above, there were non-Qur'anic surahs and verses that sounded very much like those of the Qur'an. Surah al-Hafd and Surah al-khal', and the verses about Adam and the valleys sounded so Qur'anic that they were at one time believed to be so by speakers of 7th century Arabic, Sahabah no less. Those who claim that these were once part of the Qur'an and later abrogated, or that Al-Hafd and Al-Khal' were du'as given to Muhammad by Jibril need to explain why they were abrogated when there is no obvious reason, or why Allah allowed confusion to arise about the status of the latter two when they were recorded in the mashafs of three companions.

In {{Quran|18|86}}, Dhu'l Qarnayn finds the sun setting in a '''muddy''' spring, according to the Qira'at used by today's most popular transmissions of the Qur'an. However, in around half of the various Qira'at the sun intead sets in a '''warm''' spring. The latter variant is even used in some English translations. It is easy to see how the corruption arose (whichever one is the variant). The arabic word حَمِئَة (hami'atin - muddy) sounds very similar to the completely different word حَامِيَة (hamiyatin - warm). Al-Tabari records in his tafseer for this verse [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Sun_Setting_in_a_Muddy_Spring_-_Part_One#Tafsir_.28Commentaries.29 the differing opinions] on whether the sun sets in muddy or warm water.

The reading of ibn Amir, which is one of those qira'at containing hamiyah instead of hami'ah, is still used in some parts of Yemen, and used to be more widespread.<ref>Leemhuis, F. 2006, 'From Palm Leaves to the Internet' in McAuliffe J. D. (ed.) ''The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.150 [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F2oLiXT_66EC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=false Google books preview]</ref>. In written form this difference is not just a matter of vowel marks. Even the consonantal text with dots is different. A scan of a printed Qur'an containing the mushaf of Hisham's transmission from ibn Amir's reading can even be read online and it can be seen that حَامِيَة (warm) is used in verse 18:86<ref>[http://read.kitabklasik.net/2010/12/mushaf-al-quran-al-karim-riwayat-hisyam.html kitabklasik.net] Click one of the links labelled download to view in pdf format and see page 307 of the 630 page pdf</ref>.

|{{Quran|2|125}}

|{{Quran|2|132}}    

|wawassa (and he enjoined)

|wa'awsa (and he instructed)

|{{Quran|2|140}}

|taquluna (You say)

|yaquluna (They say)

|{{Quran|2|184}}

|[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/2/vers/184 2:184]

|-

|{{Quran|2|259}}

|nunshiruha (We revive them)

|{{Quran|3|81}}

|{{Quran|21|4}}

|qaala (He said:)

|qul (Say:)

|{{Quran|40|26}}

|aw an (or that)

|wa an (and that)

|This is in a quote of Pharoah's words. Which did he say?

|[https://corpuscoranicum.de/lesarten/index/sure/40/vers/26 40:26]

|{{Quran|43|19}}

|ibaad (slaves)

|inda (with)

|{{Quran|57|24}}

Another apologetic defence of the preservation doctrine has it that even when the variants are completely different words or when words are added or ommitted, that these are all divinely revealed alternatives. This doesn't address variants that contradict each other, nor explain the suspicious fact that the variants words sound similar to each other. In any case, such obviously contrived attempts to salvage the preservation doctrine in such a way as to make it almost meaningless and unfalsifiable are incredible, even by the standards of Islam, a religion built full of contrivances to escape difficult questions.

The following are just a couple of examples from among many grammatical ''mistakes'' which show that the Qur'an is not flawless.

1. ''Butunihi'' is a mistake in 16:66. It must be ''Butuniha'', because it is referring to the plural (cattle).

2. ''Kon fayakoon'', meaning "be and it is", must be ''kon fakana'', meaning "be and he was" in 3:59, because it refers to the past not present.

Many Muslims believe that the Qur'an claims the [[Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Qur'an 2:79)|corruption of previous scriptures]]. However with this erroneous belief comes a new set of problems.

The Qur'an says of the Qur'an in 15:9, "We have revealed the ''dhikr'' (reminder) and we surely will preserve it,".

The [[Taurat]] and [[Injil]] are also referred to as ''dhikr'' in 21:48, 21:7, and 40:53-54. So if Allah could not protect these ''dhikrs'', how can we expect him to protect the last ''dhikr''?