Genesis Of A Holy Book

Zayd’s Sisyphean Assignment:

So how, exactly, did Zayd carry out this lofty charge?  It is worth quoting Bukhari’s Hadith at length.  (Note: In the excerpt, reference is made to the pivotal battle of Yamama, which had been waged in the Najd against rival prophet, Musaylimah, at the end of the year 632–that is: about half a year after MoM’s death.)

In 6/61/509-11, a testimonial was relayed by none other than Zayd himself–who is the central figure of the account.  The key passage is as follows:

“Abu Bakr [al-Siddiq] sent for me [Zayd ibn Thabit] when the people of Yamama [an Arabian town in the Najd] had been slaughtered [by the Mohammedans]; and I found Umar ibn al-Khattab sitting with him. {1}  Abu Bakr then said: ‘Umar has come to me and reported that casualties were heavy amongst the qurra on the day of [the battle of] Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place amongst the qurra on other battlefields–whereby a large part of the Recitations may be lost.  Therefore I suggest that you [Abu Bakr] order the Recitations to be collected.’  I responded to Umar: ‘How could you possibly do something that even god’s apostle did not do?’  Umar said: ‘It is a laudable project.’  Umar persisted in urging me to accept his proposal until god opened my breast for it, and I began to realize the good in the idea which Umar had proposed.  Then Abu Bakr said: ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write down the Revelations for god’s messenger.  So you should search for the fragments of the Recitations and collect it in one book.’  [Alas.]  If they had ordered me to move one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this order to collect the Recitations.”

Note the observation: “you used to write down…” as though this were an exceptional occurrence–something that made Zayd noteworthy.  The passage continues, telling us about a subsequent exchange Zayd had with Abu Bakr (instead of Umar):

“So then I [Zayd] said to Abu Bakr: ‘How shall one do something which god’s messenger did not do?’  Abu Bakr replied: ‘It is a laudable project.’  Abu Bakr continued to urge me to accept his idea.  [He persisted] until god opened my breast for that which he had opened the breasts of himself [Abu Bakr] and Umar.  So I started looking for the Recitations and collecting them from [what had been etched on] palm stalks, thin white stones, and from the [surviving] ‘qurra’.  [I did this] until I found the last verse of Surah ‘At-Tawba’ [The Repentance] with Abi Khuzayma ‘al-Ansari’ [the Helper].  I did not find it with anyone other than him.”

It would be an understatement to say that this testimony indicates a gargantuan problem (insofar as scriptural fidelity is concerned).  An entire chapter of the Koran (Surah 9) was culled from the memory of a single man (Abi Khuzayma).  The fact that the most violent chapter of the book is alleged to have been based on the testimony of one person–and that Zayd took his word for it–should give us pause.

As we’ve seen, another passage in Bukhari’s Hadith (9/89/301; no. 7191) explains that Zayd was obliged to collect excerpts from “leafless stalks, leather hides, stones” as well as from “the chests of men” (i.e. hearsay).

Meanwhile, an alternate source purportedly solicited by Uthman was Hafsa bint Umar–that is: Umar’s daughter, whom MoM had married.  (More on her later.)

Here we find a serious concern being expressed by Zayd.  Clearly, he worried–for good reason–that many passages of the “Recitations” may have already been lost; and that many more would likely be lost in coming skirmishes.  Most of those who had memorized certain passages were being killed off; and–as is stipulated–some passages had been memorized by only one surviving person.  (It is attested in Bukhari’s Hadith 9/89/301 that MOST of the “quara” at the time had perished in the battle of Yamama.)

The concern being expressed here was not unwarranted.  In his “Kutb al-Sattah”, famed mu-hadith (and perhaps the primary collector of “sahih” Hadith), Abu Dawood of Sijistan reported: “Many of the ayat [verses] of the Recitations were known by those who died at the battle of Yamama; but they were not known by those who survived; nor were they written down; nor had Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman collected the Recitations by that time; nor were they to be found with even one person thereafter.”

In his “Kitab al-Masahif” [Book of the Manuscripts], Persian scholar, Ibn Abi Dawood (son of the aforementioned Abu Dawood) noted that many verses that were known ONLY to the few “qurra” (almost all of whom perished in the battle of Yamama) were NOT known by the men who survived.  He ALSO points out that those lost verses hadn’t been written down; nor were they even known by Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman.  Such candid testimony is striking; as it reveals much that expositors today would prefer remain elided.

Testament to the loss [“zahab”] of material during the battle of Yamama are spelled out explicitly in the “Kitab al-Masahif”.  There are three passages that are worth quoting.

First: “Umar was once looking for the text of a specific verse from the Recitations, which he vaguely remembered.  To his deep sorrow, he discovered that the only person who had any record of that verse had been killed in the battle of Yamama and that the verse was consequently lost.”

Then: “Many [verses] of the Recitations that had been sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama…but they were not known by any survivors; nor were they written down; nor had Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman collected the Recitations; nor were they found with even a single person after them.”

And finally: “Many of the Sahabah had their own reading of the Recitations, but they died and their readings disappeared soon afterwards.”

Clearly, this infelicitous development was a well-known at the time.

So what was Zayd supposed to do when he encountered discrepancies?  Evidently, this occurrence was common enough that it warranted the issuing of a special order.  As it came to pass, Uthman issued the following protocol: Whenever there is disagreement with the wording (in the version Zayd comes up with), simply resort to “the tongue of the Quraysh.  As the Recitations were revealed in THEIR TONGUE” (ref. Bukhari’s Hadith 6/61/510-11). 

The fact that this request (directed not only to Zayd personally, but to fellow “qurra” like Abdullah ibn Al-Zubair, Said ibn Al-As, and Abd ar-Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham) was made AT ALL is rather curious.  For surely “their tongue” did not intimate OUR tongue…let alone GOD’S tongue (which is now surmised to be Classical Arabic, according to Mohammedan lore).  Rather, it referred to a particular vernacular that was common amongst the Quraysh at the time.  That tongue: a Hijazi variant of Syriac.  (I explore this matter at length in my essay: “The Syriac Basis For Koranic Text”.)

That there was any question of language here is very telling.  For if Classical Arabic had been a fully-developed language at the time (and especially if it had been seen as god’s signature tongue), there surely would have been little question on the matter.  The need for this specification attests that the language of the oral transmission was–as it were–up for grabs.  Moreover, if Classical Arabic was the firmly-established language by that point in time, the directive would have explicitly proclaimed that the verse should be written IN ARABIC (rather than obliquely referring to “the tongue of the Quraysh”).  Islam’s liturgical language would surely have been referred to by name; or, if not, as the language of “Allah”.

Also bear in mind that the above accounts are not “gotcha” passages from those seeking merely to criticize Islam.  They are from the most esteemed (“sahih” is generally taken to mean unimpeachable) Islamic sources.  To jettison them would entail jettisoning, well, EVERYTHING anyone pretends to know about MoM.

Some of the above account is attributed to a man named Anas ibn Malik; though there are various other amanuenses cited in the “isnads” [chains of narration].  Even verses that had NOT been lost were transmitted via several discrepant “qurra”: some via Ali (in Kufa), some via Abdullah ibn Masoud (also in Kufa), and others via Ubay ibn Ka’ab (in Damascus).  Interestingly, versions from those last two men were omitted in the fabled “Uthman” Koran (that is: based on Zayd’s efforts)–which was deemed to be the first OFFICIAL compilation…at least, for the time being.  (Apologist still speak of the “Uthman Koran” as if what we now have corresponds to that long-lost compilation of verses.)

We might note that Ubay ibn Ka’ab’s version of the recitations included two short Suras that were not in the final version proffered by Zayd…NOR even in Ibn Masoud’s version (also ref. Bukhari no. 4944, which pertains to Ibn Masoud’s alternate wording of verse 3 of Surah 92).

The degree to which such discrepancies were merely structural vs. substantive is impossible to say.  The point is that there were acknowledged discrepancies even in those early days.  (I discuss this matter in Appendix 1.)

It bears worth repeating: In the advent of the battle of Yamama, Zayd was forced to search for what he could find of (excerpts of) the Recitations: “collecting it from palm stalks, thin white stones, and from amongst the various reciters…until [he] found the last verse of Surah at-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, which [he] did not find with anybody else” (Bukhari 6/61/511).  This would not have made sense had Abu Bakr–then Umar–already possessed a completed manuscript.

Much later on (in the 9th century), the famed Islamic historian, Al-Kindi noted that under the stewardship of Uthman, “it was discovered that there was no consensus as to the true text.  One man read one version of the ‘mushaf’, his neighbor another, and they differed.  One man said his version was best while his neighbor said the same of his own version.  So additions and omissions occurred, as well as falsifications.”  Al-Kindi then recounts that “Uthman was told that different versions were in use, and that many were being tampered with; and that there was interminable strife, with all the attendant mischief of partisan fervor.”  Al-Kindi reminds us that people were even killing each other over disputes during that critical period. (!) Surely, these disagreements were intense; and so of grave concern to Uthman.  It’s no wonder he finally said “enough’s enough” and commissioned the compilation of a singular, official manuscript.

Al-Kindi concludes that it was well-known “what happened between Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.  How they despised each other and quarreled and corrupted the text.  How each one opposed the other and refuted what he’d said.  Pray tell: How are we to now know the true version?  And how are we to distinguish it from the false one?”  Good question.  Answer: Nobody COULD know.  Choices, then, were made based on…well…let’s say: other criteria. {18}

The Uthmanic “mushaf” was christened in due course.

And so it went: Zayd’s version of the “Recitations” prevailed by fiat, per Uthman’s decree.  We shall never know exactly what factors played into this particular decision…or the ACTUAL criteria Zayd (privately) used to select certain passages while discarding all others.  The answer may well have died with Zayd and Uthman.  No documentation now exists to inform us on the matter.

Predictably: For the record, Zayd–and thus Uthman–STATED what the sole criterion was: the degree of corroboration.  In other words, it was simply asserted that decisions were made based upon purported authenticity; which is to be taken as PROOF OF said authenticity.

To fail to take this (self-ingratiating) assertion without a grain of salt is to engage in circular reasoning with a radius of zero.  The disclaimer effectively states: “We deemed to be most authentic what we deemed to be most authentic.”  Of course, it would have been odd for these figureheads to make ANY OTHER assertion.  For they had to imbue their putative “isnad” [lineage of oral transmission] with a veneer of credence; giving it an air of unassailability.

The fact remains: We’ll never really know what, exactly, the “Uthman” manuscript may have said.  Whatever its contents might have been, it was almost certainly composed in Syriac…using Kufic script: the proto-Arabic script used by Arabs until their liturgical language was fully developed.

So then what?