The Qurʾān is believed by Muslims to have been revealed to the Prophet Muḥammad over the course of roughly two decades from 610 to 632 CE. The scripture is considered to have been preserved both orally - through the meticulous memorisation of the text by the Prophet's companions - and in written form. While the Prophet is reported to have dictated the text to scribes, the traditional sources nonetheless indicate that the Qurʾān was not compiled in the form of a codex (mushaf) during the lifetime of the Prophet. Instead, it was compiled during the reign of Prophet's successor Abu Bakr [632 - 634] and officially standardised during the reign of the third caliph ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān. All modern copies of the Qurʾān trace back to the original codices prepared during ʿUthmān's reign.
How reliable is the traditional narrative presented above? This article aims to answer this question in three parts. The first part of this article will present evidence that affirms the historicity of the standardisation of the Qurʾān by ʿUthmān. This section shall show that the Qurʾān we have today faithfully preserves the rasm (i.e. the undotted text) of the codices prepared by ʿUthmān. Even if the Qurʾān remained unchanged after the time of ʿUthmān, can the same be said for the period between the Prophet's death and ʿUthmān's reign? This question is addressed in the second part of this article, where I shall present evidence that strongly suggests that the Uthmanic text preserves the basic wording of the Prophet's revelations. Finally, the third part of this article will address the transmission of the Qurʾān after ʿUthmān. The codices prepared during the reign of ʿUthmān lacked vocalisation, thus accommodating some variant readings which shared the same rasm. Indeed, traditional scholars have long accepted the existence of seven or ten canonical ways of reciting the ʿUthmānic text. This section will present evidence for the existence of a common oral tradition from which the seven or ten qira'at descend, that can be dated at least to the generation of the Companions (and in my opinion, earlier). I shall suggest that the existence of variant readings can be justified with reference to the seven aḥruf ḥadīths, which suggest that the Prophet Muḥammad approved of some flexibility in the recitation of the Qurʾān as long as the basic meaning of the verses is preserved.
The majority of scholars affirm that the Qurʾān was likely fixed by the mid 7th century based on the following evidence:
Several Qurʾān manuscripts can be dated to the 1st/7th century. Some of these have even been radio-carbondated to within two or three decades of the Prophet's death. These include the famous Birmingham manuscript (C14: 568–645 CE), Codex DAM 01-25.1 (C14: 543–643 CE) and Ms Qāf 47 (C14: 606–652 CE). Caution is still necessary, however, as some scholars have expressed concerns about the reliability of radio-carbon dating.
Nonetheless, even if we set aside the radio-carbon dating, we can still date most (if not all) of these manuscripts to before ʿAbd al-Malik's reforms which took place in the beginning of the 8th century. These manuscripts can be distinguished from manuscripts produced in the early 8th century in two ways. First, they are generally written in the hijāzi script. Secondly, they contain archaic spelling features. Most notably, the word qāla is usually spelled without the letter alif, which reflects pre-Islamic spelling norms where the long ā vowel was not written. In manuscripts written in "Kufic" styles, on the other hand, the word is almost always spelled with an alif. The "Kufic" styles can already be observed on inscriptions dating to ʿAbd al-Malik's reign - and a few inscriptions dated to the 80s AH
The Qurʾān contains no explicit references to events or major historical developments that occurred after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad, such as the early Islamic conquests or the civil wars that emerged within the early Muslim community.
Everyone agreed that ʿUthmān was responsible for standardising the Qurʾān. This is quite surprising given the fact that
It is not possible to envision an Umayyad caliph establishing the standard version. To assume so would require explaining not only how the Umayyads managed to erase their empire-wide intervention from the memories of their subjects, whose statements have reached us in large numbers, in various cities, tribes, and sects, but also how it was possible to induce the same false memory about ʿUt̠mān among all, including the dissidents who preferred ʿAlī to ʿUt̠mān.
The traditional sources inform us that ʿUthmān felt compelled to standardize the Qur’an as Muslims from different parts of the empire disagreed with one another concerning the recitation of the Qur’an. This variation may be related to the seven aḥruf traditions, according to which the Prophet Muhammad himself taught or approved of variant readings as long as the basic meaning of the verse is preserved. Ibn Mas'ud, a Companion of the Prophet, is reported to have taught some
While it seems likely that there existed some flexibility in the recitation of the Qur’an during the early period, there were certainly limits to it. There are, in fact, good reasons to believe that the Uthmanic text faithfully preserves the basic structure of the surahs which were revealed during the Prophet’s lifetime:
While the majority of extant Qur’an manuscripts follow the Uthmanic rasm closely, there is one significant exception: the lower text of the Sana’a Palimpsest. Folios of the palimpsest have been subjected to radiocarbon dating, which indicates that the manuscript was almost certainly produced in the 7th century. This is supported by the fact that the lower text is written in the hijazi script and contains archaic spelling features such as the spelling of the word qāla without an alif. Most importantly, it represents a non-Uthmanic codex whose wording sometimes differs slightly from the Uthmanic text. Based on the early radiocarbon dating of the manuscript as well as the fact that copying non-Uthmanic codices was uncommon after ʿUthmān, Behnam Sadeghi argues that the manuscript likely pre-dates ʿUthmān’s standardization. Francois Deroche has expressed some reservations regarding this early dating based on the fact that the lower text includes ornamentations between the surahs and surah titles. Thus, he cautiously dates the manuscript to the second half of the 1st/7th century.
Nonetheless, Sadeghi had already noted that even if the manuscript was produced at a later date, the manuscript could still be representing an earlier tradition that pre-dates 650 CE. This appears to be supported by Eleonore Cellard’s recent article on the palimpsest. She observes that (at least) two scribes had transcribed the lower text, and they usually "alternated with each other between the recto and the verso of the same folio”. The changing of hands sometimes occurred within a verse, which “could imply copying from a written exemplar”. Thus, even if the manuscript were written as late as 690 CE, hypothetically speaking, the tradition represented by the lower text could easily pre-date ʿUthmān’s standardization.
Another internal feature of the Uthmanic text which strongly suggests that it preserves the Prophet's "original" revelations, concerns chronological features. The surahs revealed in Mecca are quite distinct from those that were revealed in Medina. In the Meccan surahs, the Qurʾān is mostly concerned with refuting the beliefs of pagans who associated partners with God and denied the reality of the day of judgement. The Medinan surahs, on the other hand, are mostly addressed to an official community of Believers, the People of the Book and those who only outwardly believe in the Prophet's message (the Hypocrites). This distinction between Meccan and Medinan surah is sometimes reflected in its terminology - a fact that has already been noted by classical scholars:
Other examples include the terms ahl al-kitāb (The people of the Scripture), yahud (Jews), nasārā (Christians), tawrāt (Torah) and injil (Gospel). The Meccan surahs do in fact occasionally refer to Biblical monotheists and their Scripture, but these terms are almost completely absent.
The codices prepared during ʿUthmān's reign contained very few diacritical marks and no vocalisation, thus they could be read in different ways at some places. Today, the recitations (qirāʾāt) of ten readers are generally considered to be "canonical". Most modern Muslims recite the Qurʾān according to the reading of ʿĀṣim b. Bahdalah (in the transmission of Hafs). The variations amongst the ten reciters are of two types. The first concerns linguistic principles which are generally applied throughout the Qurʾān and have no effect on the meaning. The second concerns disagreements at specific points in the Qurʾān.
1. At Q1:4, four of the ten reciters read: maliki yawmi l-din while the remaining six reciters read: māliki yawmi l-din. Both of these readings fit the Uthmanic rasm which sometimes omitted the long ā vowel:
2. At Q18:26, one reciter (the Syrian Ibn ʿĀmir) read: wa-lā tushrik fī ḥukmihi aḥadan (And do not ascribe any partners in His judgement) while the other 9 readers read: wa-lā yushriku fī ḥukmihi aḥadan (And He does not share in His judgement with anyone). The two readings share the same rasm. It is significant that the Birmingham manuscript - which has been argued to have been of Syrian provenance - agrees with Ibn ʿĀmir's reading:
3. At Q71:23, two of the reciter (Nāfiʿ and Abū Jaʿfar) read : wa-lā tadharunna wuddan, while the remaining reciters read: wa-lā tadharunna waddan.
The canonical reciters nonetheless recite the majority of the Qurʾān in the same way. This strongly suggests the presence of a shared oral tradition as there are several places where the canonical reciters agree with one another despite the fact that an alternative reading is possible. In a recent article, Hythem Sidky has further developed this line of reasoning by examining ten such cases. He observes that the readers' agreement cannot be the result of written transmission as early manuscripts are usually left undotted at these places - or if they do contain dots, they sometimes attest the alternative non-canonical variant! The fact that the ten readers agreed with one another, therefore, is highly significant:
Manuscript examination also confirms that written transmission was not responsible for this common core. Therefore, this common core must have been transmitted by way of a living oral tradition parallel to the written text. In other words the reading traditions are not exclusively the result of independent attempts to decipher the undotted skeletal text of the Quran
How early can we date the shared oral tradition? As one of the canonical readers (Abū Jaʿfar) is reported to have already been teaching the Qurʾān prior to the battle of Harra in 63/683, Sidky dates the oral tradition to "no later than the middle of the first/seventh century". If one is more sceptical of such reports, however, then the latest possible date for the oral tradition would be the late 1st/7th century. It is important to emphasise that these are the latest possible dates. In my opinion, the shared oral tradition is actually a common memory of how the Prophet Muḥammad himself recited the Qurʾān. This shared memory of the Prophet's recitation may have been adapted slightly to fit the Uthmanic rasm. I find this explanation to be more compelling as there does not seem to be any evidence of a later reading of the Uthmanic codex that spread throughout the Islamic empire.
To summarise, the ten readers agree with one another regarding the vocalisation of the majority of the Qurʾān. This agreement likely traces back to a shared oral tradition which dates at least to the mid 7th century (if not, earlier). But what about the disagreements amongst the reciters? Sidky suggests that most of these variants only arose in the latter part of the 7th century, and may be attributed to "linguistic variation, grammatical theory, Islamic law, exegetical concerns, interreligious polemics, human error, and even a reader’s whim". In other words, most of such variation did not directly come from the Prophet. According to the dominant Sunni traditional perspective, on the other hand, even these variations trace back to the Prophet Muḥammad. This is difficult to prove, however. The very fact that these variants share the same rasm suggests that they likely arose from reciting a written text without vocalisation. If we adopt this interpretation, the existence of variant readings may be justified with reference to the "divine permission model" discussed earlier. That is to say, even if the Prophet himself did not recite these specific variants, they remain valid as they do not significantly alter the meaning of the verse.
© Mohammed Al-Firas