Genesis Of A Holy Book

A Brief Review Of Events Thus Far:

And so it went that Zayd ibn Thabit (instead of either Al-Masoud or Ibn Ka’ab, both of whom MoM had designated as the go-to authorities when it came to the “Recitations”) was appointed for the task.  At his request, statements that had been jotted down on various surfaces were brought to him by numerous people…a salmagundi of material through which he sifted and sifted and sifted.  He subsequently selected SOME of the material…based on who-knows-what criteria.  It was all cobbled together ad hoc…and compiled into what is fabled to be the Uthmanic “mushaf”.

The subsequent directive to destroy alternate (un-approved) versions of the “Recitations” is highly problematic; for such measures attest to the fact that elision was a matter of official policy.

Predictably, it was those in power who managed to ensure it was THEIR favored version that was anointed as the only acceptable version…while competing versions were eliminated.  Yet the problem remained: Some of the discarded portions included those from “qurra” whom MoM had himself anointed as unimpeachable.

Such a glaring snafu in the historical record needed to be addressed.

It should come as no surprise that in the OFFICIAL RECORD, it is stated in no uncertain terms that Zayd somehow vetted each of the (questionable) passages with someone who’d been given the prophet’s blessing.  Lo and behold: Ibn Masoud was re-introduced into the narrative–POST HOC–to give it some ballast. (!)  This was done by later apologists…in spite of the fact that the record was quite clear on the disputation–nay: acrimony–involved.

To those who were paying attention, the question naturally arose: Wait; weren’t those two men antagonists?  And weren’t their respective versions of the “Recitations” in discrepant?  Actually, it would be rather surprising if Ibn Masoud’s (retroactive) imprimatur had NOT been propounded…given his continued clout in (the still nascent) Dar al-Islam…and the high esteem in which the Seal of the Prophets held him.

But here’s the thing: If this one man had been the standard by which each verse was vetted, then why not simply use HIS version for the final edit?  The answer to this question probably lies in the fact that even amongst the handful of the most esteemed “qurra” during the epoch of the “Salaf”, there CONTINUED TO BE disagreement about what to include and what not to include in the official record.

It bears worth repeating: At no point is there a record of Ibn Masoud personally endorsing the “mushaf” that Zayd ended up producing. {17}  According to comments made about him in the Bukhari’s Hadith, Ibn Masoud took exception to much of what was contained within Zayd’s customized compilation.  (This is to say nothing of whether or not he would have even recognized the contents of what came to be the “Cairo” edition of Islam’s holy book in 1924.)

Does all this mean that Ibn Masoud was mistaken?  Per the claims of contemporary Muslims, it MUST mean that.  But, if so, then there is a severe problem.  If HE (the highly-esteemed Ibn Masoud) was fallible, then ANYONE that Zayd may have used as a source could have been fallible. {4}

Considering the handful of the most renowned “qurra” in those first generations, we see that EVEN THEY couldn’t agree about what was and wasn’t part of the REAL “ta’lif” (version) of the Final Revelation.

The problem becomes even MORE insoluble once we consider that Ibn Masoud disagreement with Zayd is attested in the most trusted accounts.  This is a fatal problem for anyone countenancing claims of inerrancy.  For if we can’t depend on the account proffered by the most vaunted Hadith, then EVERYTHING goes completely out the window. {16}

Suffice to say, the entire process by which Zayd would have created HIS version is–if we are to believe the official account–highly suspect.  At best, Zayd’s compilation was a bespoke agglomeration of hand-picked fragments from a potpourri of disparate sources…selected according to his own inclinations.  Fragments from where?  Well, from whatever Zayd managed to find–or whatever was brought to him–etched on “palm stalks and thin white stones” and animal hides…and from some men who claimed to have memorized certain verses (of which Zayd was otherwise unaware).  There was a lot of just taking people’s word for it. {6}

At the risk of flogging a steed that is already deceased, the question must again be posed: HOW did this one man determine what did and didn’t qualify?  Irrespective of how honest and fastidious Zayd MIGHT have been, selections would have invariably been made based on his own impressions, according to his own biases.  He was, after all, only human.

Recall that, according to Bukhari’s Hadith, various verses were derived from ONLY ONE SOURCE EACH–single people who were bringing passages to Zayd’s attention of which he’d been completely unaware.  This fact alone is an indication that Zayd’s procedure for vetting–insofar as he had one–was somewhat dubious.  Indeed, it did not even remotely resemble “scientific”, let alone perfectly objective.  This was the case even if we accord to him utmost integrity and competence; as great character does not preclude fallibility. {3}

And so it went: The so-called “Uthmanic” Koran (which we don’t have, but only hear about) would have been cobbled together by a single person…from a swirling crucible of hearsay…and then eventually rubber-stamped by the caliph who had hired him to do so.

It would be an understatement to say that this does not bode well for claims of scriptural fidelity.  Add to all THAT the fact that Zayd’s compilation-project was specifically assigned by the third caliph in order to supersede whatever the FIRST caliph, Abu Bakr, had been using (never mind the second caliph: Umar ibn al-Khattab).

Why did Uthman do this?  Obviously, he was not satisfied with the extant (i.e. earlier) versions; including Ibn Masoud’s. (!)  And he could not abide dissension in the ranks; as it had horrible optics.  (Yes: P.R. was an important factor even in the Dark Ages.)  So the third caliph commissioned what he surmised would be a new-and-improved version; and subsequently treated that as the DEFINITIVE version…once and for all.  He was then obliged to pretend that it was the only version that ever had existed.  A thorough book burning took care of that.

The account of Zayd ibn Thabit speaks volumes about what was most likely ROUTINELY transpiring during the first few generations after MoM’s death (amongst the “Salaf”).  Those with the most clout sought to establish their own version as THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE version…even as they ardently sought to eradicate any competing versions.  They would then be obliged to insist that THEIR version was, of course, the version that had existed ALL ALONG.

Sure enough: That is precisely what was claimed.

God only knows what happened in the decades LEADING UP TO Zayd’s compilation…let alone in the generations FOLLOWING that compilation…as the new liturgical language gradually evolved into what is now called “Classical Arabic”.

Before proceeding, let’s note that there is an alternate account of this particular interlude–though one that is highly dubious.  In that (rather fanciful) version of the story, Abu Bakr had a fully-written “mushaf”, which he bequeathed to his successor as caliph, Umar.  Umar then bequeathed that manuscript to his daughter, Hafsah.

But that account is clearly a confabulation.  As Abu Dawood of Sijistan stated in his “Kutub al-Sattah”: “Many of the 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.”

Lo and behold: At that pivotal juncture, neither Abu Bakr nor Umar yet had a “mushaf”.  We’ve seen why.  After Zayd ibn Thabit completed his version, all other versions were eliminated.

But wait, it gets worse.  Even if we assume that Zayd’s “mushaf” (the fabled “Uthman Koran”) was an inerrant record of every word MoM had spoken generations earlier (not a single word of it contrived, omitted, or altered in any way), there is still a problem.  Whatever THAT might have been has been lost forever.  For only highly dubious derivatives of THAT manuscript–which were composed many generations later–remain.

Considering all this, shall we be generous…and STILL surmise that perspicacity was the governing principle for Zayd’s compilation project?  For the sake of argument, let’s engage in this flight of fancy.

Alas, EVEN THIS charitable reading of history comes to naught once we consider what happened NEXT.  For subsequent events make claims of scriptural fidelity even more far-fetched.