THE TRANSMISSION OF THE KORAN*

NOT many sacred books are better known than the

Kur’iin, and only a few of them have more obscure origins.
The outcome of early Kur’iinic researches was summarised
in Hammer’s well-known verdict: “We hold the Kur’itn
to be as truly Muhammad’s word as the Muhammadans
hold it to be the word of God.” This, however, has not
been found in the last few years to be irrefragable.
Scholars who like Noldeke had believed that the Kur’iin
was wholly authentic, without any interpolation-“ Keine
Falschung; der Korbn enthalt nur echte Stiicke”t-
were obliged to revise their opinion and admit without
restriction the possibility of interpolations (“Ich stimme
aber mit Fischer darin uberein, dass die Moglichkeit von
Interpolationen in Qoriin unbedingt zugegeben werden
muss”).$
I n England, where the views of Noldeke had gathered
considerable weight, no serious attempt was made for
some years to study the subject afresh. It is, therefore,
with warm welcome that one receives original and well-
considered opinions such as those found in Hirschfeld’s
“ New Researches,” in St. Clair Tisdall’s “Original
Sources,” and in D. S. Margoliouth’s masterly publica-
tions.§ The first writer has suggested that the four
verses in which the name “Muhammad” occurs were
spurious.11 I n the same sense many good works have
lately appeared in France, the gist of which is embodied
in Lammens’s studies in the series Scripta PoiitiJicii
Instituti Biblici, and in the interesting book of Casanova
* Reprinted by permission of the author from The Journal of the Manchwtm Eggptiun
and Oricnful Soeicly. 1916.
t “OrienWsche Skizzen,” p. 66.
$ “Geschichtedes Qorhns, ” end edit. by Schwally, 1909, p. 99, No. 1.
#The accusation very recently directed against the Arabista of this country by a
well-knownwriter, that they are still living on Muir, is a meagre tribute to the l e d i
Arabii of Oxford and his colleagues of Cambridge; to take as examples some second-
hand authors and scientilicallyworthless Islamisera is highly unjust.
11 “New Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Qoriin,” p. 1S9.
223
334 THE MOSLEM WORLD
who has demonstrated convincingly the existence of
many interpolated passages.*
We do not intend to offer in the present essay an ex-
haustive investigation of the sacred book of Islam, nor
to dilate on minutiae regarding a given verse in particular;
we propose to write on something more essential and
more general, on the all-important question of how the
book called al-Kur’an, which most of us read in a more
scientific and comparative way than a Zamakhshari or a
Baidawi ever knew, has come to be fixed in the form in
which we read it in our days.

TO MUSLIMWRITERS
ACCORDING
The first historical data about the collection of the
Kur’gn have come down to us by the way of oral Ha.dzth,
and not of history. This is very unfortunate; because a
critic is thrown into that medley and compact body of
legends, true or false, genuine or spurious, which began
to receive unchallenged credit a t the time of the recru-
descence of Islamic orthodoxy which gave birth to the
intolerant Caliph Mutawakkil (A.D. 847-861). The
reader is thus astonished to find that the earliest record
about the compilation of the Kur’iin is transmitted by
Ibn Sa’d (A.D. 844) and by the traditionists Bukhgri
(A.D. 870) and Muslim (A.D. 874). Before their time
nothing is known with certainty, not even with tolerable
probability, and the imposing enumeration of early com-
mentators dwindles in face of the fact that two thirds of
their authority and a t least one third of their historicity
are thrust back into the mist of the prehistoric; at the
most they could have been some of those oral “Kurra’s”
of whom L. Caetani has spoken in his “Annali dell’
Isl&m.”t
The most ancient writer, Ibn Ss‘ad, has devoted
in his tabahit$ a long chapter to an account of
“Mohammed et la fin du monde,” i3 erne fascicule, “Notes ComplCmentaires,” pp.
149-156.
t 01. TEEMOSLEXWORLD, 1915, pp. 580, sq.
1Edit. Schwally, 11. pp. 112-114.
 THE TRANSMISSION OF THE KORAN 9%

those of the “Companions” who had “collected” the

Kur’ln in the time of the Prophet. He has preserved
ten somewhat contradictory traditions, in which he enum-
erates ten different persons, each wit.h a list more or less
numerous of traditions in his favour;* these persons are:
Ubayy ibn Ka‘b (with eleven traditions) ; Mu‘iidh (with
ten traditions) ; Zaid ibn Thabit (with eight traditions) ;
Abu Zaid (with seven traditions) ; Abud-Dardii (with six
traditions) ;Tamimud-Diiri (with three traditions) ; Sa‘ad
ibn ‘Ubaid (with two traditions); ‘Ubiidah ibnus Siimit
(with two traditions); Abu Ayyub (with two traditions);
‘Uthman ibn ‘Affiin (with two traditions).
On page 113 another curious tradition informs us that
it was ‘Uthmiin ibn ‘Affan who collected the Kur’iin
under the Caliphate of ‘Umar, and, therefore, not in the
time of the Prophet. Another tradition reported by the
same author, already noticed by Noldeke,t attributes
the collection of the Kur’iin in suhufs to the caliph ‘Umar
himself.
The second in date, but the most important, Muslim
traditionist, Bukhiiri, has a very different account in
connection with the collectors of the Kur’iin in the time
of the Prophet.$ According to one tradition which he
reports, these collectors were four Helpers: Ubayy ibn
Ka‘b, Mu‘iidh ibn Jabal, Zaid ibn Thgbit, Abu Zaid.5
According to another tradition they were: Abud-Dardii,
Mu‘adh ibn Jabal, Zaid ibn Thiibit, Abu Zaid.
On page 392 is found the famous tradition endorsed by
many historians, and recently by the present writer
also,ll on the authority of Noldeke; it states that the
Kur’iin was collected in the time of Abu Bakr, and not
in the time of the Prophet:
“We have been told by Miisa b. Ismii‘il, who heard it
from Ibriihim b. Sa‘d, who heard it from ibn Shihab, who
’Cf. Casanova. Ibid, p. 100.
t “Genchichtedea QorsDd.” 1860, p. 109.
3 Bukbhf, 111, p. S97 (edit. Krehl).
0 The same tradition is copied by “Muslim,” 11, p. 494 /(edit.Dehli) and by “Tir-
midhi.” 11, p. SO9 (edit. Bulak).
11 “Leaves from three Ancient Kur’hs,” 1914.
99% THE MOSLEM WORLD
in his turn heard it from ‘Ubaid b. Sabbiik, who related
that Zaid b. Thiibit said: ‘At the massacre of Yamiimah,
Abu Bakr summoned me,* while ‘Umar ibnul-Kha.ttStb
was with him’; and Abu Bakr said: ‘Slaughter has waxed
hot among the readers of the Kur’Stn, in the day of Yam%-
mah, and I fear that it may again wax hot among the
readers in other countries as well; and that much may be
lost from the Kur’iin. Now, therefore, I deem that thou
shouldest give orders for the collection of the Kur’iin.’
I said to ‘Umar, ‘How doest thou something that the
Apostle of God-may God pray on him and give him
peace-has not done?’ And ‘Umar said: ‘By Allah, this
is good.’ And ‘Umar did not cease to renew it repeatedly
to me, until God set my breast a t ease towards it, and I
considered it as ‘Umar had considered it. Zaid added
and said: ‘Abu Bakr then said “Thou art a young man
and wise, against whom no man can cast an imputation,
and thou wast writing down the Revelation for the Apostle
of God-may God pray on him and give him peace-
search out then the Kur’gn and collect it.” By Allah, if
I were ordered to transfer a mountain it would not have
been more difficult for me than this order to collect the
Kur’iin; and I said: ‘How canst thou do something that
the Apostle of God-may God pray on him and give him
peace-has not done’; and (Abu Bakr) said: ‘By Allah,
this is good’; and he did not cease to renew it repeatedly
to me, until God set my heart at ease towards it, as He
has done for ‘Umar and Abu Bakr-may God be pleased
with both of them-and I sought out the Kur’iin, collect-
ing it from palm-branches, white-stones, and breasts of
men. . .
. And the Suhujs (rolls) were with Abu
Bakr until God took him to Himself, then with ‘Umar,
in all his life-time, then with Hafsah, the daughter of
‘Umar-may God be pleased with him.”i This tradi-
tion proves that the Kur’gn was all collected (a) under the
caliphate of Abu Bakr, and (b) exclusively by Zaid ibn
Thabit.
The speaker is Zaid ibn Thabit mentioned in the foregoing traditions.
t This same tradition is reported in 111,957, and in IV, 398.
 THE TRANSMISSION OF THE KORAN 927

The tradition is immediately followed by another

which runs thus:
“We have been told by Mfisa b. Isma‘il, who took it
from Ibriihim, who said that he had been told by Ibn
Shihiib, who said that Anas b. M&liktold him as folrows:
‘Hudaifah b. Yamstn went to ‘Uthmiin, and he had fought
with the inhabitants of Syria for the conquest of Armenia
and had fought in Adhurbaijiin with the inhabitants of
‘Iriik; and because their divergencies in the recital of the
Kur’iin had terrified him, Hudaifah said to ‘Uthman
“ 0,Commander of the Faithful, overtake this nation

before they have discrepancies about the Book as the

Jews and the Christians have.” ’ ‘Uthmiin, therefore,
sent to Hafsah saying: ‘Send us the Suhufs in order that
we may transcribe them in the mascihifs; and then we will
send them back to thee.’ And Hafsah sent them to
‘Uthmiin, who ordered Zaid ibn Thiibit, and ‘Abdallah
b. Zubair, and Sa‘id b. ‘As, and ‘Abdur-Rahmiin b.
Harith b. Hishiim, to transcribe them in the mascihifs.
And ‘Uthmiin said to the company of the three Kuraish-
ites: ‘If there is divergence between you and Zaid b.
Thstbit about anything from the Kur’an, write it down in
the dialect of the Kuraishs, because it has been revealed
in their dialect’;* and they did it, and when they trans-
cribed the suhufs in the mascihifs, ‘Uthmiin gave back the
suhufs to Hafsah, and sent to every country a mishuf of
what they had transcribed, and ordered that everything
else from the Kur’stn (found) in (the form of) Suhifuh
or mishuf should be burnt.”t
This is the oral record which, appearing 238 years after
the Prophet’s death, was accepted as true and authentic,
to the exclusion of any other, by the most eminent Orien-
talists of the last century, led by Noldeke. Why we should
prefer these two traditions to the great number of the
above traditions sanctioned by Ibn Sa‘d, an author
anterior by twenty-six years to Bukhstri, and by Bukhiiri
himself, I do not know. Professor Casanova remarks:
‘This information has been copied by another traditionist (“Tirmidhi.” 11, 187)
and by many subaequentwriters.
t Var. “torn up.”
928 THE MOSLEM WORLD
“Quant A admettre une seule des traditions comme vraie
au dCtriment de l’autre, c’est ce qui me paraft impossible
sans tomber dans l’arbitraire.”* Noldeke, however,
believes that Bukhiiri is right and Ibn Sa‘d wrong, be-
cause if the Kur’&n was collected in the time of the
Prophet, why should people have taken such trouble to
collect it after his death? (“Wenn sie aber den ganzen
Q o r h gesammelt hatten, warum bedurfte es denn spater
so grosser Muhe, denselben zusammenzubringen?).t
But the question is, Why should we prefer a t all the story
of Bukhari to that of Ibn Sa‘d who is a t least credited
with priority of time? What should we do then with the
other two traditions of Bukhsri which are in harmony with
Ibn Sa‘d in assigning the collection of the Kur’iin to the
lifetime of the Prophet? What, too, should we make of
the tradition reported by Ibn Sa‘d to the effect that the
Kur’an was collected by ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan alone, under
the caliphate of ‘Umar? What, finally, should we say
about the numerous persons who in the traditions reported
above alternate so confusedly in this “ collection”?
Which of them has effectively collected and which of them
has not?
I n examining carefully all these oral traditions coming
into play more than 830 years after the events, a t the time
of those numerous polemics in which the Muslim writers
were obliged to use the same weapons as those handled
by the Peopb of the Book, we are tempted to say that the
same credence ought to be attributed to them as that
which has long ago been attributed to the other Isncidic
lucubrations of which only those who read the detailed
oral compilations of Bukhari and his imitators have a
true idea. “La (critique) a mis en pleine lumiere la
faible valeur documentaire, sinon de la primitive 1ittCra-
ture islamique, du moins du riche dhveloppement ultCri-
eur, reprCsent.6 notamment par le recueil de Bokh&i.”$
Another authorised writers has justly pointed out: “Les
‘Ibid., 11. 105.
t Geschichte den Quorans. I860 p. 160.
3 R. Dusssud, in Journal dcs Samts. 1915. p. 195.
8 C1. Huart, in Journal Asiafique, 1915, p. 915.
 THE TRANSMISSION OF THE KORAN 949

dCtails qui entourent cette figure principale (de Muham-

mad) sont vraiment bien estompCs e t finissent mQmepar
s’effacer dans la brume de l’incertitude.’’ Not many
years ago similar honours of genuineness were conferred
upon the imposing list of the so-called “early Arabian
poems,’’ but the last nail for the coffin of the majority
of them has lately been provided by Professor D. S. Mar-
goliouth;* and it is to be hoped that, until fuller light
dawns, they will never rise again.
We quote, with some reserve, the ironical phrases of an
able French scholar: “NOUS1’ avons not6 prbddemment:
ti c8t6 des pobtes, nous possCdons la Sira, les MaghcLn, les
Sahih, les Mosnad, les Sonan, bibliotheque historique
unique en son genre, comme Ctendue et variCtC. A leur
tkmoignage concordant qui oserait dCnier toute valeur?”t
We can dispense with traditional compilers of a later
date who throw more confusion than light on the theme,
and who for the most part only quote their masters
Bukhiiri, Muslim, and Tirmidhi; Noldeke has already
referred to the majority of them,$ and the critic who has
time to spare, can easily examine them in his book. We
must mention, however, the account of the author of the
Fihrist who, although writing several years after the above
traditionists, is nevertheless credited with a considerable
amount of encyclopedic learning which many a writer
could not possess in his time. After giving the tradition
of Bukhiiri which we have translated, he devotes a special
paragraph to the “Collectors of the Kur’iin in the time of
the Prophet,” 0 and then proceeds to name them without
any I s n d . They are according to him:-‘Ali b. Abi
Tiilib, Sa‘d b. ‘Ubaid, Abud-Dardii, Mu‘iidh b. Jabal,
Abu Zaid, ’Ubayy b. Ka‘b, ‘Ubaid b. Mu‘iiwiah. These
names occur in the list of Ibn Sa‘d and that of Bukhiiri
combined; but the Fihrist adds two new factors: ‘Ali b.
Abi Tiilib, and ‘Ubaid b. Mu‘iiwiah.
.J.R.A.S., 191tJ.p.907.
t Lmmens’s “Leberceau de I’ Islam,” p. 190.
3 “Geschichte des QorBns,” p. 189, uq.
Q p. 27 (edit. Flugel).
as0 THE MOSLEM WORLD
The historian Tabari has another account :* “ ‘Ali b. Abi
Tiilib, and ‘Uthmiin b. ‘Affiin wrote the Repelation to the
Prophet; but in their absence it was Ubayy b. Ka‘b and
Zaid b. Thiibit who wrote it.” He informs us, too, that
people said to ‘Uthmfin: “The Kur’fin was in many
books, and thou discreditedst them all but one”;t and
after the Prophet’s death, “People gave him as successor
Abu Bakr, who in his turn was succeeded by ‘Umar; and
both of them acted according to the Book and the Sunnah
of the Apostle of God-and praise be to God the Lord
of the worlds; then people elected ‘Uthmln b. ‘Afffin
who . . . tore up the Book.”$
A more ancient historian, Wfikidi,B has the following
sentence in which it is suggested that ‘Abdallah b. Sa‘d, b.
Abi Sarh, and a Christian slave, ibn Qumta, had some-
thing to do with the Kur’iin. And ibn Abi Sarh came
back and said to Kuraish: “It was only a Christian slave
who was teaching him (Muhammad); I used to write to
him and change whatever I wanted.” And the pseudo-
Wiikidi (printed by Nassau Leesll) brings forward a cer-
tain Sharahbil b. Hasanah as the amanuensis of the
Prophet.
A second series of traditions attributes a kind of collec-
tion (Jam‘) of the Kur’gn to the Umayyad Caliph ‘Abdul-
Malik b. Marwiin (A.D. 6M-704) and to his famous
lieutenant Hajjiij b. Ytisuf. Barhebraeus1 has preserved
the interesting and important tradition: “ ‘Abdul-Malik
b. Marwan used t o say, ‘I fear death in the month of
Ramadfin-in it I was born, in it I was weaned, in it I
have colbded the Kur’6n (Jama‘tul-Kur-fina), and in it I
was elected Caliph.’ ” This is also reported by Jaldud-
Din as Suyitti,** as derived from Tha‘dibi.
*%%8Se.
t h i d . I, 6. M P .
4 Bid. 11.1.618.
0 “Hitmyof Muhammd’r Campaigns,” 1856, p. 68 (edit. Kremex).
11 vol. I, p. 14.
7 “Chron. Arab,” p. 194 (edit. Beirut).
** pp. ‘2’27 (edit. Jarrett).
 THE TRANSMISSION OF THE KORAN as1

Ibn Dukmak in his Descriptionof Egypt,* and Makrizi

in his Khitd,t say about the Kur’iin of Asmii: “The
reason why this Kur’iin was written is that Hajjiij b.
Yiisuf Thakafi wrote Hur’iins and sent them to the head-
provinces. One of them was sent to Egypt. ‘Abdul-‘Aziz
b. Marwiin, who was then governor of Egypt in the name of
his brother ‘Abdul-Malik, was irritated and said: “How
could he send a Kur’an to a district of which I am the
chief?” Ibnul-Athirl relates that al-Hajj5j proscribed
the Kur’an according to the reading of Ibn Mas‘tid.
Ibn Khallikang reports that owing to some orthographical
difficulties such various readings had crept into the recita-
tion of the Kur’gn in the time of al-Hajjiij that he was
obliged to ask some writers to put an end to them, but
without success, because the only way to recite rightly
the Kur’an was to learn it orally from teachers, each word
in its right place.
A t the end of this first part of our inquiry, it is well to
state that not a single trace of the work of the above
collectors has come down to posterity, except in the case
of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and Ibn Mas‘iid. The Kashsh6j of
Zamakhshari and in a lesser degree the Anwiirut-Tunzil
of Baidiiwi record many Kur’anic variants derived from
the scraps of the Kur ’an edited by the above named com-
panions of the Prophet. The fact is known to all Arabists
I
and does not need explanation. I We need only translate
a typical passage from the newly published Dictionary of
burned men of Yiikiit:a
“Isma‘il b. ‘Ali al-Khatbi has recorded in the “Book of
History” and said: “The story of a man called b. Shan-
biidh became famous in Baghdad; he used to read and to
teach the reading (of the Kur’an) with letters in which he
contradicted the mishuf; he read according to ‘Abdallah b.
Mas‘tid and Ubayy b. Ka‘b and others; and used the
* Pt.I. 7944.
t 11,454 (noticed by Casanova, p. 124).
4 IV. 463 (noticed by P&ier. ‘‘vied’ al-Hadjdjaj,” p. 957).
8 Vol. I. p. 183 (edit. Baron de Slane).
11 Cj. “Fihrist.” pp. 26-27.
1[ VI, pp. S01-SO2 (edit. D. S. Margoliouth).
23% THE MOSLEM WORLD
readings employed before the mishaf was collected by
‘Uthman b. ‘Affan, and followed anomalies; he read and
proved them in discussions, until his affair became im-
portant and ominous; people did not tolerate him any
more, and the Sultan sent emissaries to seize him, in the
year 323; he was brought to the house of the vizier Mu-
hammad b. Muklah who summoned judges, lawyers, and
Readers of the Kur’an. The vizier charged him in his
presence with what he had done, and he did not desist
from it, but corroborated it; the vizier then tried t o make
him discredit it, and cease to read with these disgraceful
anomalies, which were an addition to the mishuf of
‘Uthmsn, but he refused. Those who were present disap-
proved of this and hinted that he should be punished in
such a way as to compel him to desist. (The vizier) then
ordered that he should be stripped of his clothes and struck
with a staff on his back. He received about ten hard
strokes, and could not endure any more; he cried out for
mercy, and agreed to yield and repent. He was then
released and given his clothes . . . and Sheikh Abu
Muhammad Ytisuf b. Sairiifi told me that he (b. Shan-
btidh) had recorded many readings. ”
A study of Shi’ah books reveals also some variants
derived from the recension of ‘Ali’s disciples. They will
be discussed in a subsequent article.
ALPEONSEMINGANA.
(To be concluded in October.)