Part 2 (D) - The Example of The Uninformed

Qur’an VERSION BETA? - Smith and The Qur’an

Manuscript Evidence

The first point that we need to highlight is that the absence of manuscripts does not prove that the Qur'an in the hands of the Muslims is not the Qur'an that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammed. Secondly, the existence of early documentary evidence does not actually prove that these were the words spoken by Muhammed, or indeed any other historical character. Although this is something that Western historian like, or indeed demand, it is in fact not necessarily that reliable. The Muslims of the earliest generations, including that of the Prophet, indeed the Prophet himself considered writing a useful tool, both of preservation and reference, but it has never been accepted as sufficient in and off itself. An example of this is when Umar ibn al Khattab was approached by a group of Jews from Khaibar claiming that they had a document from the Prophet guaranteeing their right to stay. Umar rejected it, claiming it was a fake on the basis that it contradicted what was orally transmitted from the Prophet on the issue. This highlights three issues of benefit to our discussion. First the possibility of forgery of a document, even though contemperious and secondly the benefit and need for a sound chain of oral transmission, and thirdly that hostile parties certainly do not formulate a more reliable source of information.

Early Qur'anic Manuscripts in our Possession

Most of the early original Qur'an manuscripts with us now date from after the 2nd century. There are however a number of odd fragments of Qur'anic papyri which date from the 1st century as mentioned in Die Entstehung des Qur'an. There is also a complete Qur'an in the Egyptian National Library on parchment made from gazelle skin which has been dated 68AH.

Narrations differ as to how many copies were directly ordered and sent out by the Caliph 'Uthman, but they range from four to seven. It seems certain from various Muslim historical sources that several were lost, through fire amongst other things. There are four copies that are attributed to Uthman.

1) The Tashkent manuscript.

It seems that the copy in Tashkent also known as the Samarkand manuscript may be the "Imam" manuscript which Uthman kept for himself and was killed while reading it. A book has been written called Tarikh al Mushaf al Uthman fi Tashkent by Makhdun in which he gives a number of reasons for the authenticity of the manuscript;

1. The mushaf is written in a script used in the first 50 years of Hijra.

2. It is written on parchment made from gazelle.

3. There are no diacritical marks which is indicative of early manuscripts.

4. It does not have the vowelling marks which were introduced by Du'ali who died in AH68 suggesting that it is earlier than this.

As for Smith's objections to the Tashkent document, then concerning the presence of illuminations between the surahs, this does not necessarily mean that it is not the Uthmanic manuscript. Two other possibilities present themselves: a) that these medallions were used from an early time, and b) they were added at a later date.

Secondly, the irregularity of the codex also suggests two possibilities a) as suggested by Lomax, that the manuscripts have been repaired as the pages disintegrated or b) the document was originally written by several different scribes.

As for the difference between the Samarkand and Tashkent manuscripts in terms of the number of lines per page, etc., then these are not arguments that in any way disprove the early dating of these manuscripts or their attribution to the scribes working under Zaid ibn Thabit.

Smith further exposes his ignorance when he talks about the various scripts.

The Kufic Script

To begin with the quote of a Muslim, al-Kalkashandi, he maintains (Kitab al-A'sha 3/p.15) that Kufic is said to have been the earliest script from which the others developed, he writes: "The Arabic script (khatt) is the one which is now known as Kufic. From it evolved all the present pens." This is a very profound statement as its findings differ greatly from Smith's assertions! Though Nabia Abbott's conclusions perhaps may not go so far as to agree ad totum with this conclusion we find that she does say: " . . . the Muslim tradition that the original Arabic script was Kufic (that is, Hiran or Anbaran) is one of those statements which, though known to be half wrong, may yet be half right." [Abbott, Rise and Development, p.17]

The terms that came to be applied to these scripts by early Arabs themselves could not have the chronological significance that some later Arabs and most Western writers have put to them. For is it the case that the name of a thing (e.g. Kufic) necessarily indicates its ultimate origin? The fact is that the script which later came to be known as Kufic has its origin far earlier than the founding of the town of Kufah. Atiq Siddiqui writes: "The Kufic or the angular variety of the Arabic script, has been traced about a hundred years before the foundation of the town Kufa, 638CE (AH17) to which place the style owes its name." [Siddiqui, The Story of Islamic Calligraphy, p.9] That is to say, the town was founded in AH17, and the Kufic style originated 100 years before that time! Where does this leave Smith's theory? This conclusion is agreed upon by other writers; we read in The Splendour of Islamic Calligraphy: "However, Kufic script cannot have originated in Kufa, since that city was founded in 17/638, and the Kufic script is known to have existed before that date." [Sijelmasi and Khatibi, The Splendour of Islamic Calligraphy, p.97]

Smith's arbitrary dating of the origins of this script also contradicts early coin and rock inscriptions which have been commented upon by Western writers, some of them being:

31 A. H.

Tombstone of Abdar-Rahman ibn Khair al-Hajari

Nabia Abbott writes: "The earliest Muslim inscription, the tombstone of Abdar-Rahman ibn Khair al-Hajari, dated 31/652 . . . It is certainly not Makkan and can safely be considered as poor Kufic." [Abbott, Rise and Development, p.19]

Pre-93 A. H.

The milestone, dated from the time of the Caliph Abdal-Malik (reign 685 - 705CE), written in Kufic script. [see Welch, Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World, p.44]

107 A. H.

Umayyad coin, minted in Damascus, inscribed in early Kufic script. The inscription reads: "There is none worthy of worship but Allah, He is One and has no partner" [British Museum, Room 34]

108 A. H.

Umayyad coin, minted at Wasit, Iraq, inscribed in early Kufic script. The inscription reads: "There is none worthy of worship but Allah, He is One and has no partner" [British Museum, Room 34]

These dates alone are from between 60 years to 140 years before the period to which Smith alludes!

Smith insists that if the Qur'an had in fact been first compiled in the Hijaz during the Caliphate of Uthman then it we should expect it have been written in one of two other script's, amongst which he names the Mashq script. Little does he realise that the Mashq script itself had its origins in the same region (Iraq) as the Kufic. Why should then the Kufic script be excluded from its usage especially now that we have shown its early origin?

Baladhuri's account of the origins and spread of the North Arabic script [Futuh al-Buldaan, pp.471-74] points, as do other sources, to Hirah as the seat of the North Arabic script by the close of the 5th century. What is of note here is that it is the Hiran (or Anbaran) script which later came to be classified as the Kufic. Abbott writes: " . . . Kufah and Basrah did not start their careers as Muslim cities until the second decade of Islam But these cities were located closer to Anbar and Hirah in Irak, Kufah being but a few miles south of Hirah. We have already seen the major role the two earlier cities played in the evolution of Arabic writing, and it is but natural to expect them to have developed a characteristic script to which the newer cities of Kufah and Basrah fell heir, so that for Kufic and Basran script one is tempted to substitute Anbaran and Hiran . . . our study so far shows that the script of Hirah must have been the leading script in the 6th century and as such must have influenced all later scripts, including the Makkan - Madinan." [Nabia Abbott, Rise and Development, pp.6-7]

The city of Kufah therefore inherited and took on the script which was already prevailing in Hirah. The script, as we have mentioned, which was later to be titled as Kufic.

Baladhuri states further that Bishr ibn Abdul-Malik, a Christian, used to frequent Hirah, where he learned to write Arabic. Later Bishr came to Makkah and taught the writing there. Abbott in discussing the Makkan, Madinan, Kufic and Basran scripts highlights that: " . . . one need hardly expect any spectacular variations in the scripts of these four leading cities, for as we have already seen, increased activities in writing in Makkah and Madinah date from the days of Bishr (note: approx 500CE), who avowedly taught the script he had himself learned in Hirah. Thus a fundamental similarity of the four scripts is to be expected." [Abbott, ibid, p.18]

The use, therefore, of a script which was later recognised as Kufic in the Hijaz during the time of the Prophet and after is no surprise since Bishr, who himself had learnt this script from its point of origin in Hirah, had already begun to teach it in the Hijaz some 100 years earlier!

Smith also argues that it is the view of both Martin Lings and Yasin Safadi that the Kufic script 'did not appear until late into the eighth century (790's and later)'. It is difficult to see how this view can be ascribed to Safadi, because he himself, in his work Islamic Calligraphy (p.11), details the tombstone from the period of the Caliph Abdal-Malik (see above) which he describes as being in the Kufic script. This is a minimum of 80 years before the date which Smith ascribes to Safadi. Safadi writes: "The Kufic script, which reached perfection in the second half of the eight century . . . " [ibid, p.10]. Can we then assume from this, taking into account the previous evidence, that Safadi held the belief that the script first originated at this time? No, rather he is clearly stating that it is here when it reached its 'perfection'. Martin Lings and Safadi again arrive at a similar conclusion for their book in honour of the 1976 Qur'an exhibition at the British Museum (p.12)!

Smith is found to be not only incorrect in his dating of the origins of the Kufic script, but also erroneous in his opinion that Kufic is not a script that we would expect to have been employed in the Hijaz during the Caliphate of Uthman. In respect to Lings and Safadi, he has merely misread their claims.

To conclude, Abbot thinks that the Uthmanic Qur'an's probably were in Makka-Madini scripts " . . . yet when these Qur'ans were written Kufa was already in the foreground, and indeed, even before the edition of Uthman was undertaken, prominent Kufans were working on a similar, though non-official project. Furthermore Sa'id ibn al Kais, a member of Zaid's Qur'an committee, was at the same time governor of Kuffa." [Rise and Development]

2) The Topkapi manuscript.

Concerning the Topkapi manuscript there is an interesting clause in the Treaty of Versailles Article 246: "Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to his majesty King of Hijaz, the original Qur'an of Caliph Uthman."

It seems that the manuscript reached Istanbul but not Medina. However, again, the suggestion is that it is actually just after the first century.

Sheikh Mohammed Shaibanee from the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society in Kuwait certainly considers it as Uthmanic. Mohammed Hamidullah also seems to agree but with more caution. Martin Lings, amongst others, considers it second century. The reason for this late attribution is the development of the writing style (not script) and its comparative sophistication suggests a later period that the first century

3) The Islamic Museum in Istanbul.

This again does not seem to be an original Uthmanic manuscript, but the oldest copy from the original. It is written in Makki script, and is almost certainly before the end of the first century.

4) Hussain mosque in Cairo.

This is the oldest of all the manuscripts, and is either original or an exact copy from the original with similarity to the Madini script.

There are also other Qur'ans attributed to Uthman.

Ibn Nadim and Ibn Ain Aba claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib wrote three Qur'ans of which there is one in Dar al Qutb, Najaf in Iraq and it has written on it "Ali ibn Abi Talib wrote it in the year 40H", one in Egypt and one in Iran. It seems almost impossible that the Iman Riba manuscript in Iran is actually written by the hand of Ali because the script, although developed at his time, would not have been learnt by him since the dissentions in his rule kept him too busy to be able to learn such an art. It is however possible that he ordered someone else to write it.

The most significant Qur'an attributed to Ali ibn Talib is that in the Hussain Mosque in Egypt. The writing is early Kufic, it has many similarities to Madini, which is the form of writing that Ali would have used. It could well be Ali's own writing.

There is also existing Qur'anic writings attributed to Hassan and Hussain and Zain al Abideen (sons of Ali ibn Talib.). There are also other Qur'ans such as the one attributed to Hajjaj ibn Muwawiya dated AH49 and Ukba ibn Amir dated AH52 in Turkey. More information on this topic can be found in Tarikh al Khatim al Arabi of Dr Salah ud Din al Munjid from where these details have been extracted.

It is also worth mentioning that there is no deviation in these manuscripts from the Qur'an in our possession today.

The "Institute fur Koranforschung" of the University of Munich, Germany, had collected and collated some 42,000 complete or incomplete copies of the Qur'an, gathered from all over the world. After some fifty years of study they reported that in terms of differences between the various copies there were no variants, except occasional mistakes of copyists which could easily be ascertained. The institute was destroyed by American bombs during the Second World War.

The Qur'an: Histography

The first problem that we encounter with the suggestion that the Qur'an was not written until two hundred years after Hijra is that of histography, i.e. what we know of the history of that period makes this an impossibility, most notably the fact that Malik ibn Marwan, and his general Al Hajaj, were fighting against the claim of Caliphate by Abdullah ibn Zubair, whose mother Asma was the sister of Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammed. In fact the explanation that Creswell gives for the impressive construction of the Dome of the Rock is because Mecca was under the control of his rival, Abdullah ibn Zubair. It was his attempt, he claims, to set up al Aqsa as an attractive alternative to the Hajj that lead him to construct the Dome. This theory that the Dome of the Rock was given such importance rather works against Smith's ideas. If he proposes that the Qur'an that we have today was compiled and enforced under Al Hajjaj, and he must admit that that same Qur'an calls mankind to make Hajj, to Mecca, and to the house built there by Abraham, for the worship of the one God Allah. This poses a problem. Why would Malik ibn Marwaan expend so much time and effort to build the Dome on the Rock and then turn people away from that to Makkah. Furthermore, how would he persuade the people of this empire stretching from Spain to India to make Pilgrimage to a hot, barren, remote, desolate place, the journey to which itself is a danger to life and limb, and which, he is reluctant to admit, contained anything at all of any significance?

Secondly, if, as Smith asserts, the Qur'an's sophistication is a product of the Arabs contact with other civilisations. More likely than this is that a unsophisticated, primitive people would adopt the religion of their subjects as happened with the Goths and Tartars and each group of Arabs would have developed their own distinct religious tradition according to the land they conquered. Even a successful conqueror such as Alexander and his successors with a strong Macedonian/Greek culture behind him could not resist the lure of adopting the various religions of the various conquered nations. Indeed it would seem unique in history that a primitive nomadic people managed not to get absorbed into the cultures and religions of their respective conquered people, but rather managed to establish their own unique culture and civilisation. Smith openly admits this himself in his introduction:

"In the early 7th century, Islam, a religion of immense sophistication, of intricate laws and traditions was formulated in a backward nomadic culture and became fully functional in only 22 years."

"How did it come together so neatly and quickly? There is no historical precedence for such a scenario. One would expect such a degree of sophistication over a period of 1 or 2 centuries provided there were other sources, such as neighbouring cultures from which traditions and laws can be borrowed, but certainly not within an unsophisticated desert environment and certainly not within a period of a mere 22 years."

In fact Crone and Cook consider it a fault that the Arabs failed to assimilate. Strange therefore that Smith has described the Qur'an as a product of assimilation.

The rapid expansion of Islam also poses another serious problem for Smith's thesis, and that is the task of imposing a single text on such a vast empire. Indeed not only the Qur'an, but also the history, and story of the life of Mohammed, his sayings, Prophethood, and the lives and histories of his companions and family and all the theological and legal issues that were already being debated at that time, and all of this without a single voice of objection from any of the Arabs or Muslims? Joseph Van Ess comments in The Making of Islam:

"If we work with the hypothesis of an intentional "editing" of the past on the scale assumed by the authors we would have to presuppose not one forger, but a host of them, and not only one in Syria, where AbdulMalik could have "manipulated" the process, but also in Iraq and in the Hijaz. Not only a historical tradition would have been invented, but also much poetry showing the impact of the religion (cf. Doctoral thesis of Omar A. Farrukh, 1937 - obviously unknown to the authors). In this respect, the situation is different from that in early Christianity; we are not dealing with a few isolated gospels." >

Abu Hanifa was already teaching in Kufa. It seems that he might have supported the claim of rulership of Abdullah ibn Zubair, and sent monies to help him. It is incredible that no mention was made of this "new" Qur'an being introduced, since Abu Hanifa's rulings were based heavily on it. R. B. Sergeant comments in Journal of Royal Asiatic Society on this issue that:

"An historical circumstance so public cannot have been invented."

Furthermore, one of the arguments that secular historians have always used to explain the phenomenal conquests of the Muslims was the fervour of their faith, and their unity upon one Book and one Prophet calling to universal brotherhood of all believers before God, whatever their race or colour. "These are the things that made Islam a power in human affairs . . . ", as H. G. Wells comments in A Shorter History of the World. How does one then explain this phenomena that H. G. Wells goes on to call "the most amazing history of conquest in the history of our whole race."

Another devastating fact that makes the 200 AH compilation theory next to impossible are the existence of various sects, namely the Shi'a and the Khawarij, who trace the origins of their factionalism to the Caliphates of Ali ibn Talib and Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan. They had every reason to try and prove their claims by referring to their own versions of the Qur'an, but the undeniable fact of their agreement until this day upon a single text of the Qur'an, and their inability to even bring one single different ayaat proves that a standard text had become completely established at a very early stage. These groups would have been the first to exploit any attempt by Hajjaj to compile and introduce a new version, let alone a completely different book. This fact has been well recognised by many Orientalists, including Muir who comments in his Life of Mohamet [sic]:

"Contending and embittered factions, talking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mahomet, have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but one Coran has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by them all in every age up to the present day of the same scripture, is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph.

There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text."

The fact is that the greatest evidence in this regard is the lack of evidence. The statement of Crone and Cook concerning Hajjaj "destroying the writings of the hagerines" is not enough to prove anything. It has several other acceptable historical explanations. Furthermore it seems, according to Wansbrough's review of Crone and Cook's book (Hagarism) published in the BSOAS that the non-Muslim source Levond, who is supposed to have reported Leo's description of this event, does not contain any such account! Is it possible that this book, compiled or even authored under the dictates of Hajjaj, then enforced upon an empire was done so without a single word recorded anywhere by anyone? Then there comes a list of questions that this fairytale poses. Who were the authors of this book that until this day captures the hearts and minds of millions, which moves men to tears, and which history testifies that the masters of the Arabic language, even after the time of Hajjaj, have been unable to emulate? Why refer back to Muhammad as a Prophet, in fact why should not Hajjaj announce himself as a Prophet?

"When they speak of "the belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions" they are begging the question of where this plurality came from. A lot of revelations? A lot of prophets? One fact that needs to be taken into account with other facts is that the Koran has given profound satisfaction to millions of people over fourteen centuries. Are we to fall back on the notion that just anyone could have written any of it?" (N. Daniel, Journal of Semitic Studies)

Yet again the Qur'an has all the hall marks of an oral, not of a written form, as Smith himself admits disparagingly in his apologetic.

"There remains the basic question whether the early Muslims can really be viewed, in their attitude towards the Koran, as editors patching fragments together and whether they were not rather believers who recited the Koran in their liturgy; "Qur'an" after all means 'recitation'." (Joseph Van Ess, The Making of Islam)

There remain several other important issues. One of them is the content of the Qur'an itself. How does one explain a vast array of verses that Smith declares himself in another paper, that contradict completely these assertions, that they "reflect the mind of Mohammed." What does "He frowned and turned away . . . " mean? Who frowned and turned away, and from whom?

Then there is the issue of Meccan and Medinan surahs. G. H. A. Juynboll remarks:

"What makes Wansbrough's theories so hard to swallow is the obvious disparity in style and contents of Meccan and Medinan suras. If, for the sake of argument, we assume, as he states, that the Qur'anic canon is the end product of a basically oral transmission of logia ascribed to "an Arabian prophet", but which most probably originated gradually with later generations, how then can we account for that difference between the one genre and the other which is, with the acceptance of the historicity of the Hijra and with that of at least the main traits of the Sira, so adequately explained?" (Journal of Semitic Studies)

In conclusion it seems that one of the strangest positions taken by Crone and Cook and Wansbrough in all of their restructured offering is their assertions on the Qur'an . This is an area which has probably the most unanimous agreement upon by all Muslim as well as non-Muslim Orientalist researchers. How they arrive at such an extraordinary position?

R. B. Sergeant comments on the work of Crone and Cook:

"One learns with astonishment that "there is some reason to suppose that the Koran was put together out a plurality of early Hagarene religious works", and that "the Islamic imamate is a Samaritan calque". Have these young authors ever read the Qur'an attentively, or, in their more modest way, are they seeking the fame won by the ingenious Hebraist who associated Jesus Christ with the mushroom?" (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society)

And on Wansbrough he comments:

"Wansbrough avers (p.47) that in certain Qur'anic passages "ellipsis and repetition are such as to suggest not the carefully executed project of one or many more men, but rather the product of an organic development from originally independent traditions during a long period of transmission". In this he is, of course, attempting to fit the process by which the canon of the Bible was established, onto the Qur'an, but it won't wash!" (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society)

The claims of both groups, Crone and Crook and Wansbrough, on the issue of the Qur'an have been almost universally rejected by all recognised scholars. This isn't surprising however, when one considers the superficial nature of the work of both groups in comparison to the depth of the studies carried out by the likes of Watt and Muir. Both contemporary and traditional Orientalists excluding of course, the present writers, have researched extensively into the collection and codification of the Qur'anic text and the emergent view is unanimous. One recent writer, John Burton, who's book was published at the same time as the work of Crone, Cook and Wansbrough, arrives at precisely the same position regarding the Prophet's direct association with the Qur'an as his preceding learned progenitors. R. B. Sergeant remarks:

"J. Burton in his recent Collection of the Qur'an (Cambridge, 1976), argues vastly more cogently than Wansbrough's unsubstantiable assertions, that the consonantal text of the Qur'an before us is the Prophet's own recension." (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society)

Even Wansbrough himself comments:

"This remarkable work is the fruit of many years' study, much discussion, and not a little tenacity. To my persistent efforts at demolition, or at least modification of his thesis, Dr. Burton has reacted by seeking even closer definition and more extensive documentation. Its final form is truly impressive." (BSOAS)

The list of earlier scholars who correspond to this unified position include Watt, Muir, Arberry, Rodwell, Gibb, Margolouith, Guilliame, Glubb and Paret.

A brief examination into a few statements from some of these writers would be indicative of the majority opinion on the issue and of its Divine nature.

Adrian Brockett:

"The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in. This applied even to the early Caliphs. The efforts of those scholars who attempt to reconstruct any other hypothetical original versions of the (written) text are therefore shown to be disregarding half the essence of Muslim scripture." (Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an, p.44)

Arthur J, Arberry:

"Apart from certain orthographical modifications of the originally somewhat primitive method of writing, intended to render unambiguous and easy the task of reading and recitation, the Qur'an as printed in the twentieth century is identical with the Qur'an as authorised by Uthman more than 1300 years ago." (From his introduction to his translation of the Qur'an)

John B. Taylor:

"Thus we can feel confident that the Qur'an which we have today is as far as is humanly possible the text which was established within a few years of the Prophet's death." [J. B. Taylor, Thinking about Islam]

Harry Gaylord Dorman:

"It is a literal revelation of God, dictated to Muhammad by Gabriel, perfect in every letter. It is an ever-present miracle witnessing to itself and to Muhammad, the Prophet of God. Its miraculous quality resides partly in its style, so perfect and lofty that neither men nor jinn could produce a single chapter to compare with its briefest chapter, and partly in its content of teachings, prophecies of the future, and amazingly accurate information such as the illiterate Muhammad could never have gathered of his own accord." [Towards Understanding Islam, p.3., New York: 1948]

Laura Veccia Vaglieri:

"On the whole we find in it a collection of wisdom which can be adopted by the most intelligent of men, the greatest of philosophers and the most skilful of politicians . . . But there is another proof of the Divinity of the Qur'an; its is the fact that it has been preserved intact through the ages since the time of its Revelation till the present day . . . Read and re-read by the Muslim world, this book does not rouse in the faithful any weariness; it rather, through repetition, is more loved every day. It gives rise to a profound feeling of awe and respect in the one who reads it or listens to it." [Apologie de I'Islamisme, pp.57-59]

It is in the disregard of the legacies of these writers that have caused the divergence from the authoritative position by the present writers, and have lead to the unanimous rejection of their theories by critics.

• Back to the Table of Contents of An Authoritative Exposition
  
• Back to the Islamic Awareness HomePage