Textual Variants of the Qur'an

Most Muslims claim that the text of the Qur'an is identical to that received by Muhammad. This is a convenient thing to believe, but is it the truth? There is overwhelming evidence that it is not: 

1. Evidence of Change Before 'Uthman

Why did 'Uthman feel the need to destroy other copies of the Qur'an, unless they contained variants? Why did Ibn Ma'sud refuse to hand over his copy for destruction? How do we know that Uhtman's copy was better than any of the others?

Below is my itemized pertinent response:

Question No. 1: Why did 'Uthman feel the need to destroy other copies of the Qur'an, unless they contained variants?

Response No. 1:  'Uthman ibn 'Affan was elected as the third Caliph by a Council called the Shura. As the elected leader of the Muslim Ummah (Brotherhood), it was his privilege and prerogative to appoint a Commission to collect all the available verses of the Qur'an from the 'Ummah and undertake the task of preparing a definitive compiled copy of the Qur'an. The Commission established a criteria for this specific purpose. When this Commission, headed by Zayd ibn Thabit - a reputable scribe and  personal secretary to the Prophet, came up with a finally compiled copy of the Qur'an, it was approved by 'Uthman for circulation. The Caliph also supervised that the faithful copies of it were made and circulated to various provinces and Islamic countries. Having accomplished that, the next obvious question before him was; how to preserve this canonized text from being tainted at a later date? There were thousands of collected verses from which this final canonized copy was prepared. The majority of this collected verses met the criteria established by the Commission and there were a few that did not. They all were now superfluous. One of the criteria established by the Commission was that any verse that did not have the collaboration from another source, should be rejected. To keep such rejected verses within circulation would be to defeat the ultimate aim and purpose of this 
and it's efforts. Hence, 'Uthman felt the need to destroy these superfluous copies of the verses and preserve the approved text from being tainted. A true Believer would say, within these Revelations, Allah had undertaken to preserve His Final Scripture. The third Caliph was just an instrument of Allah to do what Allah had intended to do.

Lo! those who disbelieve in the Reminder when it cometh unto them (are guilty), for lo! it is an unassailable Scripture. Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or behind it. (It is) a revelation from the Wise, the Owner of Praise. 
         (Glorious Qur'an 41:41/42) 

    There is no evidence to show that the appointed Commission had disapproved or rejected the verses that DID MEET the established criteria. Nor, there is evidence to show that the Commission DID belong or adhere to a particular SECT of Islam and was biased in preparing the final copy. The history records that the Prophet (pbuh) died in 632 and twelve years later, 'Uthman was elected Caliph in 644. It was after 'Uthman's death, there arose differences within the 'Ummah. The divisions and the Religious Sects within Islam came into being after his death and not before. The critic's remark "unless they contained variants" is a speculative guess.  Unfortunately, the Critic fails to see and appreciate the obvious and essential need for such an action. Hence, this rebuttal. 

Question No. 2: Why did Ibn Ma'sud refuse to hand over his copy 
for destruction?

Response No. 2:  The appropriate question should have been; Why did Ibn Ma'sud initially refuse to hand over his copy for destruction?
A brief bio-data of this early companion of the Prophet (s.a.s.) would help us to understand the entire situation. His name was Abdullah. He was son of Ma'sud. During his childhood he was also called "ibn Umm Abd" (the son of the mother of a slave). At an early age he joined the Prophet in his mission and stayed very close to him. He received the training in the household of the Prophet and had learnt the Qirat of the Qur'an (the accepted method of the recitation of the Qur'an) from the Prophet himself. He was a leading reputable Qari (reciter of the Qur'an) and used to recite loudly and clearly. Ibn Ma'sud was recommended by the Prophet to those who wished to learn the Qirat . He was very knowledgeable on the Shariah and followed the Sunnah of the Prophet closely. When he was sent to Kufa in Iraq, the people of Kufa highly respected him. They not only used to learn from ibn Ma'sud the verses of the Qur'an but also used to consult him on the subject. 

       In Jam' Al-Qu'ran chapter 3, cited by the Critic which can be found on their web page;
           http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap3.html
 under the sub-heading:
       IBN MAS'UD'S REACTION TO UTHMAN'S DECREE
the opening paragraph reads:

When Uthman sent out the order that all codices of the Qur'an other than the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit should be destroyed, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud refused to hand over his copy. Desai openly speaks of "Hadhrat Ibn Mas'ud's initial refusal to hand over the compilation" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.44)

THE VARIANT READINGS IN IBN MAS'UD'S CODEX.

The Critic writes in the opening paragraph to the above:

One of the anomalies recorded in respect of Ibn Mas'ud's text is that it is said to have omitted the Suratul-Fatihah, the opening surah, and the mu'awwithatayni, the two short surahs with which the Qur'an ends (Surahs 113 and 114). The form of these surahs has some significance - the first
is purely in the form of a prayer to Allah and the last two are "charm" surahs, being recommended incantations of refuge with Allah which Muslims should recite as protection against sinister forces and practices. One tradition states that Ubayy ibn Ka'b was at one time challenged with the
suggestion that Ibn Mas'ud had made certain negative statements about these surahs and he replied that he had asked Muhammad about them and was informed that they were a part of the revelation of the Qur'an and should be recited as such (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.472).

In Sura 15 verse 87, it is Revealed: "And We have bestowed upon thee the Seven Oft-Repeated (verses) and the Grand Qur'an." 

1. Almost everyone is in agreement that "the Seven Oft-Repeated (verses)" is the other name for Suratul-Fatihah. This opening Surat of the Qur'an consists of the Seven Verses. These Seven Verses form the integral part of the Ritual Prayers for every Muslim. A person praying five times a day repeats these Seven Verses at least seventeen times. 

2. No one has argued or proved that the above quoted verse 15: 87 was NOT written by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud in his Musaf (lit. any thing between the two covers - a book). In other words, the above quoted text was known to ibn Mas'ud as the text "Revealed by Allah". Hence, it is inconceivable that anyone after having recited the above quoted verse would doubt the Revelation of the Suratul-Fatihah from Allah (swt).

3. The above quoted verse of the Qur'an conclusively demonstrates, from within the "Revealed Verses" of the Qur'an itself , that the Seven Oft-Repeated (verses) i. e. Suratul-Fatihah  was indeed "BESTOWED" upon Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by Allah. Everything that was REVEALED to the Prophet and faithfully RECITED word for word by the Prophet did qualify as the undeniable part of the "Recitation" the synonym for "al-Qur'an". To say that the existence of Suratul-Fatihah within the compilation of the Qur'an done by the Commission appointed by Uthman and headed by ibn Thabit is a "textual variant of the Qur'an" is thus absolutely unfounded and a false allegation. 

4. The above quoted verse of the Qur'an speaks of the Qur'an "and"
the Seven Oft Repeated (verse). Based upon this connecting word "and" one may have at one time argued that this word separates the two. Although, the later being Revealed by Allah alike the Verses of the Qur'an and Bestowed upon Prophet Muhammad, technically or legally, they are two separate "groups" of Revelations and as such be kept separate. The acceptance or adherence to this kind of understanding does not lower or alter the rank and the eminence of the "Seven Oft Repeated Verses". Even from this point of view, the compilation of the so advocated "two groups" of the Revelations into "a single group" does not qualify as "textual variant of the Qur'an".

Let us now deal with the second part of the Critic's allegation, which is in printed in Red Color: 

One of the anomalies recorded in respect of Ibn Mas'ud's text is that it is said to have omitted the Suratul-Fatihah, the opening surah, and the mu'awwithatayni, the two short surahs with which the Qur'an ends (Surahs 113 and 114). The form of these surahs has some significance - the first is purely in the form of a prayer to Allah and the last two are "charm" surahs, being recommended incantations of refuge with Allah which Muslims should recite as protection against sinister forces and practices.

One tradition states that Ubayy ibn Ka'b was at one time challenged with the suggestion that Ibn Mas'ud had made certain negative statements about these surahs and he replied that he had asked Muhammad about them and was informed that they were a part of the revelation of the Qur'an and should be recited as such (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.472).

There may be a difference of opinion as to the word "Qul". Was this word "Qul" to be repeated by a reciter while the recitation of the verse or not? As long as the rest of the text is recited in full with a complete understanding that the text recited was indeed Revealed from Allah to Prophet Muhammad and the Message conveyed is understood by the Reciter, it does not qualify as "textual variant of the Qur'an".

EXAMPLES OF VARIANT READINGS IN IBN MAS'UD'S CODEX.

The Critic writes: 

When we come to the rest of the Qur'an, however, we find that there were numerous differences of reading between the texts of Zaid and Ibn Mas'ud.

The Critic has used the phrase "the texts of Zaid" which is a misnomer. He is in fact comparing the texts that were approved by the Commission appointed by Uthman. It is also essential to note that the Critic has used the phrase "differences of reading". This could include the differences due to the placing of the "diacritical marks" upon the constants. These diacritical marks, which were later introduced to the texts, denote the vowels that the constants would take for the correct reading. Such variations may in some cases change the tense of a verb or the gender. 

Before one examines the cited examples below one has to note the essential fact that the Critic is comparing the Commission's compiled texts with the texts to be found within the personal copy Musaf (book) of Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud. As mentioned earlier Ibn Mas'ud had made notes in his own Musaf for his personal references. One will certainly notice that the Message conveyed by both the texts essentially remains unchanged. There is no lack of correspondence between the two readings. For a better understanding let us examine the six examples: 

1. Surah 2.275 
The Commission approved text would translate; 
...those who devour usury will not stand except like the standing of a person touched by Satan.
Ibn Mas'ud's personal text would translate;
...those who devour usury will not be able to stand on the "Day of Resurrection" except like the standing of a person touched by Satan.

2. Surah 5.91 
The Commission approved text would translate; 
...fast for three days.
Ibn Mas'ud's personal text would translate;
...fast for three "successive" days.

3. Surah 6.153 
The Commission approved text would translate; 
"Verily this is my path".
Ibn Mas'ud's personal text would translate;
This is the path of Your Lord.

4. Surah 33.6 
The Commission approved text would translate; 
...and his (Prophet's) wives are their mothers
Ibn Mas'ud's personal text would translate;
...and his (Prophet's) wives are their mothers and he is their father.

5. Surah 3.127 (This verse is numbered 3:133 in Yusuf Ali & Pickthall)
The Commission approved text would translate; 
Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord...
Ibn Mas'ud's personal text would translate;
"Be ahead" in the race for forgiveness from your Lord... 

6. Surah 6.16 
The Commission approved text would translate; 
On that day if the penalty is averted from any, 
it is due to Allah's Mercy;
Ibn Mas'ud's personal text would translate;
On that day if the penalty is averted "by Allah" from any, 
it is due to Allah's Mercy;

Question No. 3:  How do we know that Uthman's copy was better than any of the others?

Response No. 3: Having read the details so far, the answer to this question is very simple and logical. We are dealing with a Musaf (book) containing more than 6200 verses that were revealed at different places and at the various times in the history of the Prophet's life, over an extensive period of 23 years. To place one's complete confidence upon the solitary work of any individual, for such a hugh collection, would be to virtually to say that person  was an infallible individual. On the other hand the Commission's work was based upon the texts collected from various individuals. The Commission had the opportunity to cross check works of several companions of the Prophet and only those that met their guidelines were included. Thus it qualifies to be a better collection and an authenticated compilation, superior than any of the others. 

2. Evidence of Change After 'Uthman

The above heading by the Critic gives an impression that serious accusations and allegations are being leveled against the Glorious Qur'an. Upon scrutiny you will find them to be hollow. The Critic writes:

There is evidence that changes to the Qur'an continued after the time of 'Uthman: 

The wordings of the above cited sub-heading and the first two Hadiths quoted under this sub-heading, in support of the serious allegations, in fact demonstrate that seven different styles of "poetical  recitals" of the Qur'anic Text is the alleged "Change" after 'Uthman. I suggest the learned Christian Critic to honestly ask himself the following question;  If two citizens of the United States of America, living in two different States of USA, were to sign the same National Anthem of America in their own individual styles or in two different tunes would he consider that be an "Evidence of Change" within The National Anthem of USA?
Here are those two Hadiths:

The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.510). 

Ibn Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Gabriel taught me to recite in one style. I replied to him and kept asking him to give more (styles), till he reached seven modes (of recitation). Ibn Shihab said: It has reached me that these seven styles are essentially one, not differing about what is permitted and what is forbidden.
     (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.390)

Al-Hajjaj changed Uthman's Qur'an

Later Corruption of the Text of the Qur'an?
The Christian Critic questions as above and then remarks:

The text we have today is not even Uthman's Revised Version of the Qur'an, but it incorporates changes by Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi. 

Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi, who lived in the years A.D. 660-714, was a teacher of Arabic language in the city of Taif. Then he joined the military and became the most powerful person during the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik Ibn Marawan and after him his son Al-Waleed Ibn Abd al-Malik.

Since this is a very serious allegation against the Book of Allah let me reproduce the actual passage written by the author from Chapter # 8.

The Teacher Who Corrected the Koran 

         Al-Hagaag Ibn Yousof Al-Thakafi, who lived in the years 660-714 A.D., was a teacher of Arabic language in the city of Taif. Then he joined the military and became the most powerful person during the reign of Caliph Abd-Elmalik Ibn Marawan and after him his son AlWaleed Ibn Abd-Elmalik. Because Al-Haagag taught Arabic, he gave himself the liberty to change several words of Caliph
Uthman's Koran, which is an indication that he did not believe that the Koran was verbally inspired or was inscribed in a "tablet preserved." We will mention but a few of the words Al-Haagag Ibn Yousof AlThakafi changed: 
(Here under appears the transliterated texts of examples)

2. The Christian Critic from <answering-islam.org> had added after the text from chapter number 8; "Actually, according to Ibn Abi Dawud, Al-Hajjaj changed 11 verses of the Qur'an, available here in Arabic script." Upon visiting the indicated link one finds the verses written in contemporary Arabic script only. There are no verses in the ancient Arabic script in which the original verses were circulated by Calipha 'Uthman to compare and judge. The Critic has not mentioned the qualifications of Ibn Abi Dawud or the source document for reference. 

Compare Not the Oranges with the Apples
Here is my challenge to the Critic. Please faithfully reproduce the verses that are under dispute, as they appear in the 'Uthman's definitive text that was determined by a commission headed by Zaid ibn Thabit, along with 'Abd-Allah ibn az-Zubayr, Sa'id ibn al-'As and 'Abd ar Rahman ibn al-Harith. Keeping in mind that this text was written in the inchoate Arabic script, lacking the vowel signs as well as the diacritical to distinguish between certain consonants. Next to these verses please also faithfully reproduce the verses of the Qur'an that Muslims read today, in the contemporary Arabic script minus the vowel signs as well as minus the diacriticals. This will give me the opportunity to scrutinized each and every cited example in its true perspective. Thanks.

Some historical data:
Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf:
In 650 copies of the Quran that were authorized by Calipha 'Uthman were distributed to various Islamic regions. Some ten years later Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was born. When he grew up he joined the military and became instrumental in the capture of Mekkah in 692. After that he pulled down the enlarged Kab'ah, a portion of which had burnt down by a fire. He then rebuilt it to the previous scale. After that  he came into the lime light. This must be more than 40 years after the circulation of the approved text by Calipha 'Uthman. Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf died in 714. 

The introduction of diacritical marks to the verses of the Qur'an:
It was in the first centuries of Islam the diacritical marks upon the consonants were placed. Prior to that the authority of the Qurra (singular Qari, the authoritative reciter of the Qur'an) and the authority of the oral transmissions were the indispensable and essential compliments to the text that had been circulated by 'Uthman in 650. 

Here is an excerpt from The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse: 

As Islam became diffused among peoples whose Arabic fell far short of the Quraysh standard, or for whom Arabic was not even a mother tongue, it became a matter of urgency to remedy the deficiencies of the script, formalize grammar and preserve the integrity of the revealed text and of Arabic, the sacred language. The rapid vulgarization of Arabic that ensued in the first centuries of Islam when the language, no longer protected by its isolation, became the lingua franca of a vast realm, was a phenomenon noted and deplored by the scholars of the age. 

Please click hadith-book.pdf and read my earlier response

Scholars while studying the history of the Qur'an and its Collection have recorded in their works that to reconcile the laws of Sharia with the text of the Qur'an, Hadiths were manufactured in the 2nd or 3rd cent., Hijri. (e.g. John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, Cambridge, 1977)

4. Hadiths which refer to lost suras

Please click hadith-book.pdf and read my earlier response

5. Variants which exist in present-day manuscripts

The first item under this heading number five reads:
     About some recent manuscript findings
If you were to click the above line it will LINK you to the following site:
       http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm

Here you will find an article entitled 'WHAT IS THE KORAN?' that was published in an American magazine 'THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY' in January 1999. The article was written by Toby Lester. Many Muslim scholars and readers had responded to this article. I had e-mailed my response to the editor. I remember having read a scholarly indepth reponse to this article by a learned scholar. I am not sure if that was published in 'The Atlantic Monthly' or in a Muslim Magazine. If some one has a copy of those response(s) please send them over to me. If you were to down load and print the entire article, which is in three parts, the total number of printed pages would be around twenty-four.

The Christian Critic has not raised any question or questions, arising out of this article which he has linked. I do not think it is my job to do his leg work, raise questions and then respond. So, I proceed further.

Al-Hamdu’lillah, from my old archive I found a printout copy of the scholarly response to the above cover story of ‘The Atlantic Monthly’ by Dr. Jeremiah D. McAuliffe, Jr. Ph.D.   I strongly recommend the surfers to read this rebuttal by a newly convert to Islam. Here it is:

Letters to the Editor
The Atlantic Monthly
77 North Washington Street
Boston, MA 02114 

December 30, 1998

To the Editor, 

As a convert to Islam with a background in academic religious studies, it was with great excitement and enthusiasm that I opened your January 1999 cover article "What is the Koran?" by Toby Lester. 

It seems clear that much of Muslim theology has stagnated into a dry legalism over the last few centuries, as represented by the famous phrase "closing the doors to ijtihad". "Ijtihad" refers to the interpretation of the Qur’an. (The phrase is famous among Muslims, and is central to understanding many issues facing contemporary Muslims, but this was not mentioned by the author.) 

And so, I approached the article anticipating an exciting exploration. However, I was very disappointed. It clearly exhibited a confused understanding of some aspects of Muslim thought-- including statements that were simply misleading-- and a confusion between two interesting topics: the history of the Qur’an and the interpretation of the Qur’an. In addition, Lester makes use of references that are out of print and/or written by self-proclaimed antagonists to Islam. In other
words, there is no way to check many of the author’s major references, and some of them are clearly bigoted-- not academic. 

First, the problematic references. Lester refers to the seemingly authorless The Origins of the Koran. This lapse in attribution is understandable given that this collection of essays is edited by
none other than the infamous, pseudonymous "Ibn Warraq" author of Why I am Not a Muslim. This earlier work cannot be described as anything resembling valid academic scholarship, as I show with my online review...   "Warraq" articulated his purpose in writing this earlier book: "This book is first and foremost an assertion of my right to criticize everything and anything in Islam-- even to blaspheme." One can only assume his goals have remained unchanged, and one can only question the validity of such types of writing.

Indeed, one of his own references in that earlier book distanced herself in no uncertain terms from his misrepresentation of her work. I had a personal conversation with Dr. Ann Elizabeth Mayer at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania regarding "Warraq’s" reference to some of her work. She was quite clear in disdainfully classifying "Warraq" as a hate-monger, not a legitimate academic. Details are available at the web address listed above. 

Similar problems abound with reference to the works of Patricia Crone-- neither of which are in print. Also out of print are the books by John Wansbrough referenced in the article. Given this, I have to question Lester’s assertion that anyone "engaged in the critical study of the Koran today must contend with Wansbrough’s two main works..." (emphasis mine) Am I to assume there are so few people engaged in such study that two such seminal works cannot be kept in print? Or at
least, that there is no recent work based on Wansbrough’s books the author could have referenced? Were there no mainstream authors or current works to reference that the diligent student could easily obtain for him or herself? 

In the beginning of the article Lester discusses issues that would involve the possibility of a historical development to the Qur’anic text that continued after Muhammad’s death. At the end of the article, however, it appears the topic has changed to issues related to the interpretation of the Qur’anic text-- as that text’s history is currently understood. In both arenas, the article raised for me more questions than it answered. Questions pertaining to the author’s grasp of both topics. They are not the same. The general and usual understanding of the historicity of the text is that the Qur’an is a collection of Muhammad’s utterances at discreet, identifiable times over a period of
about twenty-three years. A proper understanding must then always refer back to the historical context, situation, or questions being asked by his contemporaries at the time of each "incident of revelation." In that sense, Muslims have always understood the Qur’an as being bound by history, time, place, and context. (There is absolutely no similarity between the Muslim understanding of the process of this alleged revelation and a Christian understanding of revelation by "verbal
inspiration" as is stated by the author.) 

It is known and accepted among Muslims that there are several versions of the Qur’anic text. These variations have to do with differing diacritical marks, and do not seem to significantly effect meaning. It is also alleged that two or three copies of the original ‘Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an still exist. To my best understanding, one is in Turkey and perhaps two in the old Soviet Union. It would have been helpful for the author to mention these variations and texts and how they may or may not relate to the discovery of the Yemeni texts. Are the Yemeni textual variations simply among the known and accepted readings of the Qur’an? Do they differ from the texts alleged to be ‘Uthmanic? Or are these completely new, hitherto unknown variations? (That would
indeed be significant!) In other words, which "standard Koranic text" is Lester discussing and comparing with the Yemeni texts, exactly? We do not know, and have thus failed to actually learn much of anything. 

Lester’s discussion of orthodoxy in Islam seems highly problematic, in that technically Islam has no priestly caste within which resides interpretative authority. In other words, who’s "orthodoxy" is
the author referencing? Shi’a? Sunni? Wahabi? Sufi? We don’t know. It may be safe to assume the author is prey to the common misconception that Muslim thought is one huge monolithic entity as defined by the classical ulema and their ideological descendants. It isn’t. And had the author read or referenced any of the varieties of Sufi theology he would know that metaphorical interpretations of the Qur’an are alive and well and quite popular among many, many Muslims. 

In an article that attempts such detailed analysis, it was very disturbing to find two errors in the presentation of the basics of Islamic thought. The author defines "sunna" as "the body of Islamic social and legal custom." This is incorrect. Sunnah is the example of Muhammad-- communicated both through the hadith literature and the practical example of the living Muslim community. Shariah, or Muslim Law, is the body of social and legal customs and behaviors. While the Shariah is partially derived from what is considered to be the sunnah of Muhammad, it also incorporates several methods, such as use of analogy, to apply that example to various situations. This appears
to be a significant error on the part of the author. 

Another error is found in a quote from Gerd-R. Puin who questions the Qur’anic self- description of being "clear" when "every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense". This was shocking to me from an academic studying the Qur’an, for the Qur’an is quite explicit that some verses of the text are clear in meaning, but some are not clear in meaning. (Surah 3: Ayat 7) Indeed, Muhammad Asad, in his masterful and contemporary English commentary on the Qur’an states
that this passage "may be regarded as a key to understanding the Qur’an" and yet Puin seems to have completely ignored it in his assessment of the intelligibility of the Qur’an-- and clearly
misleads with his statement on the issue of clarity. One can only question the validity of Puin’s grasp of and awareness of the text. In addition, on the same point, Qur’anic Arabic is not the same as Modern Arabic. Are some of the sentences "incomprehensible" to Puin and others today because of a loss of ancient meanings and words due to the natural development of spoken Arabic? We don’t know, this important issue is not even mentioned. 

Additional errors, or at least statements open to question, are made by the author in his understanding of the status of a translated Qur’an, the "doctrine" of abrogation, the understanding of what is actually done with Islamic symbols in Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and a number of other not-so-minor points that need not be detailed here. 

Suffice it to say that this article has failed to deliver a substantive report on the issues facing contemporary Muslims as they begin to look at the foundational text of their religious tradition in a fresh, contemporary way, and has failed to communicate the actual significance of the discovered Yemeni texts. 

I must refer your interested readers to a fascinating recent work surveying contemporary Muslim debates on the interpretation of the Qur’an (though not on the allegations of a significant post-Muhammadan historical development of the text) by Daniel Brown entitled Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought (ISBN 0 521 570778). 

Sincerely, 

Jeremiah D. McAuliffe, Jr., Ph.D. 
eMail: alimhaq@city-net.com 

Truth Unchanged, Texts Unchanging
The Text of the Bible and the Text of the Quran: 
A Brief History 

   The Christian Critic had earlier taken the liberty of creating an Internet Link to an article that was printed in a Monthly Magazine as a part of his research document and/or as an added component to his Critique entitled, 'Textual Variants of the Qur'an'. This time the Critic has taken not only one but a couple of steps backward. The brief introduction by the Critic to the above "Brief History" (reproduced below) tells us that the text reproduced by the Critic belongs to an "unpublished article". Also, there happens to be no appellation whatsoever, before or after the name of the author of the text under review. In absence of the bio-data and the designation of the author one simply wonders how qualified are the assessments by this hereto unknown individual, probably a student of the College in Ontario. Furthermore, there are no indications that text reproduced or the article itself was acclaimed by his College or has any endorsement from the faculty. This desperate act of the Christian Critic to reproduce the unpublished text by an unknown writer simply reflects that he has not been able to procure passages to quote in support of his Critique, from "published works" by reputable authors that are easily available for further study, verification and preparing comprehensive responses. 

The Seven Readings of the Qur'an

    A panel of Christian Critics contributing to site <answering-islam> and other independent as well as organized Christian Critics have lately made the subject **Readings** of the Qur'an a major issue. The variations in the modes of vocalization or the different dialectical styles of Recitations (Qirat by Qurra) are wrongfully impressed upon and/or labeled as the "textual variations". The desperate Christian Critics are out to prove before their own Brothers and Sisters, who are entering the Islam in great numbers, that the Qur'an that Muslims read is no different from the Re-Revised copies of their Bible, when it comes to the "preservation of the Revelations". 

    Here is a simple test. How many different Categories of the Bible, and how many different Categories of the Qur'an, are in the market? These differentiation in the categories are to be based upon the dissimilarities in the total numbers of Books (e.g. Genesis, Exodus), within the available copies of the Bible; and based upon the dissimilarities in the total number of Surahs (Chapters), within the available copies of the Qur'an. If one wishes to continue, the next exercise would be based upon the dissimilarities in the total numbers of Verses within the Books of a Bible (e.g. Marks ending, Chapter 1 John 5), and based upon the dissimilarities in the total number of Verses within the Surahs of a Qur'an. In spite of the endless re-revisions the Bible editors have not come up with 'THE FINAL TEXT' that has an assurance of never to be revised again. Of course, any one reading a "REVISED" Scripture can never claim that the Almighty God had promised to Preserve that Scripture, and it has been "safeguarded".

The Self Contradictions...

SITE # 1. 
URL: http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm
SUBJECT TITLE: The Seven Readings of the Qur'an:
EXCERPTS from Samuel Green's article:

In this short article we examine this claim.
(author is examining the claim that the Qur'an is perfectly preserved)

FACT 1. N.J. Dawood is an Arabic scholar who has translated the Qur'an. In the introduction to his translation he says: 

... owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority. (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983, p. 10, bold added) 

Note:  N. J. Dawood is a non-Muslim Arabic scholar. His article and the Critic's Conclusion, both speak about the "variant readings" and NOT about the "variant texts". The more appropriate term should be "variant recitations". This variations in "recitations" did exist due to the various dialects. Mr. Green; Can you please name a language, that is spoken in several countries and in only ONE DIALECT? 
Surprisingly, the above quotation reproduced by the Critic begins from the middle of a sentence. Below I have reproduced the text preceding that quotation. The important last sentence is highlighted in red:

During Mohammed's life-time verses were written on palm-leaves, stones, and any material that came to hand. Their collection was completed during the caliphate of Omar, the second Caliph, and an authorized version was established during the caliphat of Othman, his successor (644-56). To this day this version remains as the authoritative word of God. But, owing to....

But what is the nature of these variant readings?

FACT 2. To begin to answer this question we can turn to an Islamic encyclopedia written by a practising Muslim. Here we read the following: 

In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to      ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with     only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are: 

The predominant reading today, spread by Egyptian Koran readers, is that of 'Asim in the transmission (riwayah) of Hafs (d. 190/805). In Morocco, however, the reading is that of Nafi` in the riwayah of Warsh (d. 197/812) and Maghrebin Korans are written accordingly. (Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989, p. 324, bold added) 

Thus there are a total of fourteen transmitted versions of the Qur'an, and different parts of the Muslim world print their Qur'ans according to different transmissions. 

Note: The repeated use of terms; "The Readers" and "Readers" by the Critic in his Conclusion clearly indicates that the entire issue is about the "Recitation". The above quotation from the Encyclopedia appears under the sub-heading Qira'ah, which literally means "reading". The plural of it is qira'at and the one who recites is a Qari. 
Samuel Green has tried to mislead the readers (by not disclosing the full facts), that the authoritative "readers" (e.g. Nafi, Ibn Kathir...) are the ones from whom originated the styles or systems of the "readings'. We do not have to go very far to find out if these were the Originators. Once we next examine the SITE # 2 the Truth will manifest itself.

Before we go to SITE #2 there is one other related issue: 

The Change of Dialects;   that mean.. 
The Change of Pronunciations;   that means..
The Additions &/or Deletions of Vowels within Words..
BUT NO CHANGE IN THE MEANING OF THE TEXT...

In their desperation, the Critics have cited examples of such variations in the Arabic words as the "textual variations" in the Qur'an. For the readers who do not know the language these may appear as the textual variations, but they are not. Here is a good example from their Bible.

In 'Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity', appears an illustration of the Cover from the *Byble* published during the reign of King Henry VIII. The King had repudiated the authority of Pope and published this first English Byble. Here in this sixteenth century publication one would see the words: "Bible" written as "Byble"; "Hebrew" as "Hebrue"; "Greek" as "Grcke"; "texts" as "textes" and the phrase "Old and New Testament" as "Olde and Newe Testament" and so forth and so on. Obviously, the Christians of the sixteenth century must be READING the biblical texts from their copies of the "Byble" differently from what the Christians of this era are reading. Can the present mode of "spelling" and the "style of reading" of the Holy Bible be alleged as the "textual variants" in the biblical text from that of the 16th century?

      While we will examine more fully the origins of the ‘7 Readings’ later, it is necessary to introduce them at this point since the content of the texts of Caliph ‘Uthman have been relayed through history as part of Islam’s ‘oral tradition’, which is the sole record of these ‘readings’. 

      Von Denffer makes an important point about the ‘7 readings’: 

         "The ‘seven ‘ahruf’ are however, not identical with the well-known
         ‘seven readings.’ These came about in a later age." (Ulum, p. 117;
         emphasis added). 1

As Von Denffer states it: 

         "The ‘seven readings’ were standardised in the second/eighth century. Ibn Mujahid, a ninth-century Muslim scholar, wrote a book entitled The Seven Readings, in which he selected seven of the prevailing modes of recitation as the best transmitted and most reliable. Others were subsequently disfavoured and even opposed, among them the readings of ibn Mas’ud and ‘Ubay bin Ka’b." (Ulum, p.119)

      These then are ‘reading systems’ which have become associated with the names of specific individuals through whom they are traced, although they are not declared to be the originators of these ‘systems’ . They are listed here according to the respective Islamic centres where not only did each one live, but where they would have been expected to use the ‘Uthmanic text from that centre. Thus we have: 

      from Medinah (Nafi, d. 169 A.H.); 
from Meccah (ibn Kathir, d.120 A.H.); 
      from Damascus (ibn ‘Amir, d. 118 A.H.); 
      from Basrah (Abu ‘Amr, d. 148 A.H.); 
      from Kufah (‘Asim, d.127 A.H. ; Hamza, d. 156 A.H. ; al-Kisai, d. 189 A.H.). 

      In addition, three other ‘readers’ are accepted as filling this out to ‘the Ten’. The additional three are: 

      from Medinah (Abu Ja’far, d. 130 A.H.); 
      from Basrah (Ya’qub, d.205 A.H.); 
      from Kufah (Khalaf, d. 229 A.H.). 

Note: Here we basically find the same material as seen in SITE # 1.

However in SITE # 1 we discover the following Conclusion by the Critic:

Conclusion 2. We can see from the above quote that the Qur'an has been passed down to us through seven men called "The Readers". The way in which the Qur'an was recited by each of these "Readers" was formerly recorded in textual form by other men called "Transmitters". This text made by a "Transmitter" is called a transmission of the Qur'an. Each "Reader" had two transmissions made of his recitation of the Qur'an. Thus a transmission is the Qur'an according to a particular authoritative "Reader".

The final conclusion drawn by the Critic of SITE # 1 reads:
Thus a transmission is the Qur'an according to a particular authoritative "Reader". The wordings of this final sentence of the final conclusion misleads the readers into believing that today there are atleast FOURTEEN (or more) Qur'ans, originating from the equal number of "TRANSMITTERS", who lived during the second century of Hijrah. 

The final conclusion drawn by the Critic of SITE # 2 reads:
      These then are ‘reading systems’ which have become associated with the names of specific individuals through whom they are traced, although they are not declared to be the originators of these ‘systems’ . They are listed here according to the respective Islamic centers where not only did each one live, but where they would have been expected to use the ‘Uthmanic text from that centre.

Self Contradictions between Site # 1 and # 2:

1. These Fourteen or more, so called "Transmissions" in SITE # 1, are NOT the Qur'ans but they are the 'reading systems' of the Qur'an as per SITE # 2.

2.  Out of all these 'reading systems'  only "‘seven readings’ were standardised in the second/eighth century." As per SITE # 2.

3. "Thenames of specific individuals through whom they are traced,
are not "the originators of these ‘systems’." In other words the origins of these 'reading systems' developed in the second century Hijrah could go back to the same "seven modes or styles" of the Recitation that were prevalent during the first century of Hijrah and during the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

4.  Under the SITE # 2, the Critic writes; "They [reading systems] are listed here according to the respective Islamic centers where not only did each one live, but where they would have been expected to use the ‘Uthmanic text from that centre." 

THE ABOVE CONCLUSIVELY PROVES FROM THE CRITICS OWN DOCUMENTS THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE 'UTHMANIC TEXT OF THE QUR'AN WITH seven standardized 'reading systems'.

THE CLAIM OF MUHAMMAD'S PERFECT MEMORY

   Under the above subject heading Critic Samuel Green questions if  Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a PERFECT MEMORY to remember the verses of the Qur'an that were revealed to him? He attempts  to prove from the Hadiths (texts of which can be questioned) that the Prophet did forget a few Verses from a certain Chapter of the Qur'an, which he mentioned having remembered later on. To read the text of his claim visit: http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/forgot.htm

Here is the text of one such Hadith quoted by the Critic:

SAHIH BUKHARI: book LXI; volume VI, pages 507-508 

     556. Narrated 'Aisha * : The Prophet * heard a man reciting the Qur'an in the mosque and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such a Surat."

Please read the Critic's conclusion:

CONCLUSION
The evidence from the Qur'an and Hadith clearly teach that Muhammad and his Companions had normal memories and did forget parts of the Qur'an. Rather than saying that Muhammad had
supernatural memory we should listen to what he said about himself: I am only a human being and I forget just as you do. (Bukhari, Abu Dawud)

My Question to the Critic:

Mr. Green, based upon your own research and having draw the above CONCLUSION, do you conclusively believe that the Prophet had normal memory like a human being and he "did forget parts of the Qur'an" and later on, he did remember the forgotten Verses of the Qur'an that were communicated to him, earlier?

IS YOUR RESPONSE YES...
In that case the CONCLUSION drawn by you recognizes that Prophet Muhammad was not the composer or the author of the Verses and he used to forget the parts of the COMMUNICATION. Such a positive response upholds the fundamental Truth from the Bible and the Quran.

"...and that I (Jesus Christ) do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father taught me." John 8: 28
"The Most Gracious, it is He who has taught the Qur'an"? 55: 1-2

IS YOUR RESPONSE NO...
In that case you have to withdraw the Conclusion that you have drawn. 

THE LOST TEXT!!!

    Whenever the Prophet used to receive the Revelations, at the first available moment, he would ask his companions to take the dictation and write down the text of the Revealed Message. At the same time he would also advise the companions to memorize the revealed verses. With this process being in place the question of text being lost due to Prophet's personal memory is in itself a questionable issue. 

    Hypothetically speaking, if the Prophet had totally forgotten the part of the Revealed Message and it was never ever conveyed to anyone, then how did or could any one know what is lost or if anything was lost?

   To read an indepth response to any of the above topics please visit web site http://islamic-awareness.org/   Here Dr. M. S. M. Saifullah and his team of dedicated Muslim scholars have done and excellent job of responding to these and other topics that I have not dealt with in this article. Many of the topics rebutted by <islamic-awareness.org> are excellent and need no additional input, hence they remain untouched 

Request: If you are a Webmaster of an Islamic Site I would request you to create a link to this page on your web site with a brief note. JAK 

Akbarally Meherally

Allah knows the best...