Genesis Of A Holy Book

The FIRST Book-burning:

After commissioning what would (temporarily) become the official version of the “Recitations”, Uthman had ALL OTHER VERSIONS BURNED.  This bold act is attested in Bukhari’s Hadith (6/61/510; no. 4987).  It comes as no surprise, then, that–since no other variants were allowed–no other variants from that time survived.  If one picks only one version and destroys all the others, the mere fact that there ended up being no variants says nothing about the fidelity of the favored version.

The abjuration was–effectively–as follows: Eliminate all variants, then marvel at the fact that there no longer exist any variants.

This specious precedent would become common practice.  According to Bukhari’s Hadith, there was an explicit directive to eliminate any extant versions of the Koran which were not approved by the caliphate thereafter: “When you receive the NEW versions, burn the old versions so that there is no record of them” (6/61/510).  This was done in order not only to erase alternate versions; but to erase all evidence for the very existence of earlier versions.  (That is: It erased THE FACT THAT there were other versions up until that point.)  For if it could be shown that there had initially been alternate versions, then the argument that the “Recitations” had remained unchanged would be undermined.

As legend has it, Ibn Masoud disobeyed this order.  Confident that HIS version was the best, he secretly hid his manuscripts (so the story goes).

We might note that calls to eradicate unapproved texts was nothing new in the religious world.  The policy went back to Late Antiquity with disputes about canonical Judaic scripture.  For instance, the Mishnah prohibits the reading of extra-biblical books (ref. Sanhedrin 10:1).  The practice was pioneered by the Roman Catholic Church–especially during the 4th century, as the Vatican magisterium became increasingly involved with the Roman imperium; and the Nicene creed was being formulated (primarily by the notoriously mendacious Athanasius of Alexandria).  Hence any text that was not officially approved by the powers-that-be were systematically destroyed. {13}

Fundamentalist Christians–along with fundamentalist Muslims–have been banning books ever since. {14}

The point is worth repeating: After Uthman ordered that any and all extant versions of the “Recitations” be destroyed save the one he sanctioned, it is no wonder that only one version survived.  Boasting that there are now no variations is therefore tautological.  We should be no more aghast that, pursuant to Uthman’s project, there was only one version of the “Recitations” than that there ended up being only one official version of the Harry Potter series published by Bloomsbury.

It stands to reason that Uthman would have put his foot down; and commissioned an official version of (what was taken to be) the “Recitations”; then had any and all other versions destroyed.  Dissent was not conducive to maintaining order, or to controlling the narrative.  He needed to be able to assert, unequivocally: This is how the Recitations have been ALL ALONG.  Consequently, any and all countervailing evidence needed to be eradicated.

There can be little doubt that Zayd’s ad hoc compilation involved extensive modifications–including omissions and embellishments as it suited his (assigned) purpose.  Of course, we can’t know this for sure; but to insist otherwise would be a flight of fancy.

It is indubitable that there were inadvertently lost or deliberately redacted passages.  But missing verses was not the only problem.  Inevitably, an array of vagaries crept into the resulting anthology of “Recitations”.  This was demonstrated by the emergence of no less than seven “sab at-i ahruf” (different modes of recitation) within just the first generation of oral transmission.  In the midst of these “ahruf”, the Koran would eventually be standardized (against a background of variant readings and “lost” passages).  Which “harf” was favored by whom at any given time and place was based on who-knows-what.  In any case, one of the seven “ahruf” was eventually designated the “true” version, while the others were dismissed as distortions.  I explore the dubiousness of such claims in Appendix 1.

All in all, if we were to take the accounts thus far as historical fact (that is: if we were to take the “sahih” Hadith seriously), it would mean that an official version of the Recitations was not compiled until over two decades after MoM’s death…and then CONTINUED to be revamped over the course of the next one (or two, or even three) generations…in spite of Uthman’s efforts.

In sum: It is folly to conclude from the largely successful efforts of the powers-that-be (in establishing a SINGULAR official “mushaf”) that there NEVER WERE many variations.  More to the point: To assume that the version Uthman designated as the “correct” version is the one that bore the closest resemblance to the original folklore is, to be frank, naive.  Not only is there zero evidence for this, but the logistics involved are untenable.

Whatever fidelity it may have exhibited (vis a vis the ministry of MoM), the fabled “Uthman Koran” would have been most faithful to the interests of those in charge when it was compiled.

Uthman is a textbook example of the adage that history–as it has been passed down to us–is written by those in power.  The only records that we now have regarding what may have happened during Uthman’s reign are, well, precisely the records that Uthman wanted to survive (i.e. the records cited in the present essay).  Put another way: All that we can now SEE is–by definition–what the caliph sanctioned.  What we are now told likely transpired is precisely that which HE WANTED us to be told transpired.

Using such records as some sort of verification of Uthman’s honesty is, therefore, question-begging.

Amidst all this, it should come as no surprise that Uthman’s acolytes claimed that Uthman was perfectly honest in his god-given commission (as a “rashidun” caliph).  We are now told that his conduct was beyond reproach because that is precisely what HE would have said about himself.

What we now CAN say for sure is that Zayd’s verse-selection process was anything but impartial…and more extemporaneous than he would have liked to admit.  As we’ve seen, that much is implicitly conceded, even in the most vaunted Hadith. {16}  What we can be certain about is that the result–whatever it might have been–was effectively an instruction manual for getting into heaven (and avoiding hell).

In the early 11th century, a scholar named Abu Muhammad Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Hazm of Andalusia went so far as to openly state that Uthman had made changes to the Koran: “This is the description of Uthman’s work that was compiled in the presence of the Sahabah.  While copying the “masahif”, he burned what he burned from them, from what he had changed intentionally or by mistake” (ref. volume 1 of the “Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam”).  In other words, this was still common knowledge four centuries after the fact.