Chapter 7: Collection Traditions and the Alteration (Tahrif) of the Qur’an through Addition

If these traditions were authentic, and if it were possible to use them as evidence that alteration through omission (naqs) occurred in the Qur’an, it would follow that whoever made this deduction would take them as evidence of alteration through addition (ziyada). The reason is that the method presumably employed in collecting the Qur’an entails this corollary .It is not possible for anyone to deny this on the grounds that the extent of inimitability of Qur’anic eloquence precludes the possibility of adding to its text, and for that reason no analogy can be drawn between alteration through addition and alteration through omission. The reason that such an argument cannot be made is the fact that while the Qur’an’s inimitability can preclude the possibility of matching a whole sura, it cannot prevent the addition to its text of a word or two or even a full verse, especially if it were a short one. Had such a possibility not existed, there would have been no need for the testimony of two witnesses, as related in the collection traditions, for a verse brought by a single person could have proved itself, by its eloquence, to be part of the Qur’an. Therefore, whoever maintains that tahrif occurred cannot avoid the corollary that additions have occurred as well, and this is absolutely against the consensus of the Muslims.

To conclude, the attribution of the collection of the Qur’an to the caliphs is an imagined view, contrary to the Book of God, the Sunna of the Prophet, and reason. It is not possible, for those who believe that tahrif occurred, to use this belief in their arguments and assertions. Even if we were to admit that Abu Bakr was the one who collected the Qur’an during his caliphate, then we should have no doubt that the method of collection described in these traditions is fallacious, and that the collection of the Qur’an was based on its uninterrupted transmission among Muslims. All that happened, in other words, is that the collector recorded in a codex what was preserved in the memories by means of successive transmission from the Prophet.

There is, however, no doubt that ‘Uthman collected the Qur’an during his time, not in the sense that he collected the verses and the suras in one volume, but in the sense that he united the Muslims on the reading of one authoritative recension, destroyed all the other texts that disagreed with it, wrote to the other regions of the empire to [have them] destroy all the copies in their possession, and forbade people to dispute the manner of reading the Qur’an. These facts have been accepted explicitly by a large number of Sunni scholars.

Al-Harith al-Muhasibi writes:

The prevalent view among people is that the one who collected the Qur’an was ‘Uthman, but they are wrong. ‘Uthman compelled people to read [the Qur’an] in a uniform way on the basis of a selection which he agreed upon with the Muhajirun (Emigrants) and Ansar (Helpers) who were present at the time. He did this because he feared the out- break of sedition as a result of the dispute between the people of Iraq and Syria regarding the “styles” (harfs) of the readings. Before this, several versions of the text existed, based on the seven harfs in which the Qur’an was revealed. ²⁰

As for the one reading on which ‘Uthman united the Muslims this reading was the one in circulation among Muslims, and which reached them through uninterrupted transmission from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). Moreover, he banned the other readings, which were founded on the traditions that spoke about the revelation of the Qur’an in seven harfs. We demonstrated the falsity of these traditions earlier in this study. This action by ‘Uthman was not criticized by anyone among the Muslims because the dispute over the readings was causing a conflict, sedition, and loss of unity among Muslims, to the extent that they were accusing each other of disbelief. As noted in some of the traditions, the Prophet had prohibited disputes in the matter of the Qur’an. The thing which ‘Uthman was criticized for was his destruction of the rest of the codices and his ordering other regions of the empire to do the same with those texts that were in their keeping. Indeed, a group of Muslims protested against ‘Uthman for doing that and called him “the destroyer of the [Qur’anic] texts.”

Summary:

It has been adequately demonstrated that the tradition about tahrif (corruption of the text in any form) is nothing more than a delusion and an imagination, maintained by those with weak reasoning, or those who fail to take into consideration all the pertinent details needed to derive a sound opinion, or those who are compelled to hold such an opinion. Any rational person can detect the weakness of the argument of those upholding such a distorted view of the state of affairs in the early history of Islam.

Notes:

1. Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 6, pp. 477-78.
2. Ibid., pp. 478-80. These two traditions, and the nineteen that follow, are quoted in Ibn ‘Abd al-Muttaqi, Muntakhab Kanz al- ‘Ummal in the margin of Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, pp. 43-52.
3. Suyuti, al-Itqan, sec. 18, vol. I, pp. 167-68.
4. Qurtubi, Tafsir, vol. I, p. 56.
5. The mathani suras (as the term occurs here) are those consisting of less than a hundred verses, but more verses than those in the short suras in the last portion of the Qur’ an, known as al-mufassal. (Opinions diverge widely as to where this portion of the Qur’an starts, some putting it as early as sura 50.)-Trans.
6. The mi’in suras are those with more than a hundred verses.-Trans.
7. Ibn ‘ Abd al-Muttaqi, Muntakhab Kanz al- ‘Ummal, vol. 2, p. 48.
8. Ibid, p. 52.
9. Bukhan, Sahih, vol. 6, p. 487.
10. Ibid.
11. Suyuti, al-Itqan, sec. 20, vol. I, p. 202.
12. Ibid., 20, pp. 203-4.
13. IbIbid., p. 200. Al-Qurtubi, in Tafsir, vol. I, p. 50, says: “And among them [the reciters], on that day [yawm (a battle of) al- Yamama] seven hundred were killed, as reported.”
14. Muhammad b. ‘ Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Nisapiuri, Al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn fi al-Hadith wa fi Dhaylihi Talkhis al-Mustadrak, 4 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat wa Matba’at al-Nasr al-Hadithah, n.d.), vol. 2, p. 611.
15. Ibn Hanba1, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 324.
16. IbIbn ‘ Abd al-Muttaqi, Kanz al- ‘Ummal, vol. 2, p. 185.
17. Zurqani, Manahil al- ‘irfan, p. 324.
18. This tradition has been related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nasa’i. See Mansur ‘Ali Nasif, Kitab al-Taj al-Jami li-al-Usul fi Ahadith al-Rasul (Cairo: Matba’at ‘Isa al-Babl al-Halabi, n.d.) vol. 2, p. 332.
19. Al-Suyuti, al-Itqan, sec. 18, vo1. 1, p. 167.
20. Ibid., p. 171.