The Qurʾān: Oral in Origin, Textual in Legacy

About this Entry

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

Here is an academic paper that I wrote for a History module entitled ‘Rulers, Rebels and Scholars of Early Islam’ as part of my joint honours BA in History and the Study of Religions at SOAS, University of London.

The essay question: ‘Can we deem the Qurʾānic muṣḥaf in circulation today an authentic replica of ʿUthmān’s codex? What is the evidence to support your opinion?’ is, in other words, placing importance on the textuality of the Qurʾān in order to prove that its replica is a legitimate copy of the ʿUthmānic codices. Although much can be written about the textual transmission of the Qurʾān, I only focussed on its orality due to the word limit, as set by SOAS.

Once again, it must be remembered that this is an academic paper not an Islamic one. It is not free from errors and questions/suggestions of an academic nature are most welcome.

Jazākallāh khair.

@hqmaasim

FB | T | IG @hqmaasim

Presenting the Field:

An Introduction

Over the period of twenty three years, the Prophet Muḥammad received Divine revelations (waḥī) that exist today in the form of a material, tangible book which Muslims revere as the sacred word of God.[1] This book, referred to as the Qurʾān, was never entirely transcribed during Muḥammad’s lifetime and was only ever officially canonised during Uthmān’s (d. 644CE) caliphate. Although Muslims believe that the Qurʾānic copies, in circulation today, are a replica of the codex that ʿUthmān prepared during his reign, the question of authenticity still remains pertinent. That the Qurʾān was not standardised until over a decade following the Prophet Muḥammad’s death has sparked academic debate amongst Western and Muslim scholars about its written nature.[2] How authentic can one consider the Qurʾān if no contemporary text existed? What procedures were undertaken to insure that the revelation received by the Prophet Muḥammad was preserved and can these measures be considered credible in today’s scholarship? This essay will consider these issues by analysing some of the primary and secondary sources available on this subject and assess whether the Qurʾānic copies extant today can be deemed as authentic replicas of ʿUthmān’s codex. In specific, three areas will be investigated in this paper: i) efforts of Qurʾānic preservation during the Prophet Muḥammad’s lifetime; ii) the difference between Abū Bakr’s (d. 634CE) earlier codification and Uthmān’s later canonisation; and iii) the role of oral transmission in the preservation of the Qurʾān. In order to ascertain the textual authenticity of the Qurʾān in circulation today, this paper will primarily focus on its oral tradition, avoiding discussion of other topics – such as manuscripts and inscriptions – due to the limitations of this paper. It will be concluded that the matter of authenticity is subjective to analytical partiality. That there still remain many questions unanswered in this field does not suggest that a coherent solution cannot be achieved, rather all academic contributions should be considered respectively, in order to piece together the puzzle this field of study presents.

Efforts of Qurʾānic Preservation During the Prophet Muḥammad’s Lifetime

Early Qurʾānic preservation is not limited to its transcription alone, in fact, based on the milieu in which the Qurʾān was received, orality had a more profound role in preserving this spoken text.[3] In support of this, the Qurʾān [15:9] states, “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Remembrance (dhikra) and indeed, We will be its Guardian (ḥāfiẓūn).” It is interesting that the Qurʾān should employ the use of both dhikra and ḥāfiẓūn as both are indicative of its inherent orality. For instance, al-Ṭabarī writes that the term dhikra specifically refers to the Qurʾān (wa huwa ‘l-Qurʾān),[4] whilst Madigan writes, “[…] words derived from the root dh-k-r carry a primary sense of orality.”[5] Similarly, the term ḥāfiẓūn is from the triliteral root ḥ-f-ẓ, meaning ‘to remember by committing to memory’. Both these points assist our understanding that early preservation of the Qurʾān relied mainly on memorisation and its oral transmission, with transcription only receiving a marginal role. In addition to this, that the Prophet Muḥammad was illiterate[6] significantly substantiates the importance of the Qurʾān’s orality as he did not receive textual revelation nor did he write it down upon reception. Instead, he taught its recitation to his companions orally, who in turn also memorised it. In light of this, al-Suyūṭī writes:

‘Bukhārī related from ʿAbdu l-Lāh bin ʿAmr bin al-ʿĀṣ, who said he heard the Prophet, upon him salutations and peace, say, “Learn the recitation [of the Qurʾān] from four people: ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh ibn Masʿūd, Sālim [ibn Muʿaqqal), Muʿādh [ibn Jabal] and Ubay bin Kaʿb.”’[7]

Quoting al-Ḥākim, al-Suyūṭī further writes that the companion Zayd bin Thābit said, “We used to give [chronological] order to the Qurʾān from [various] fragments in the presence of the Prophet, upon him salutations and peace.”[8] This suggests that the companions sought knowledge of the Qurʾān both orally and textually. That said, however, Madigan explains:

“Al-Suyūṭī lists several types of material on which, according to the traditions, fragments of the Qurʾān were written […] It is difficult to see in such a motley collection of materials any indication that Muḥammad had a book in mind.”[9]

The aforementioned excerpts establish three things: i) there is no clear evidence to suggest that the Qurʾān was entirely collected in textual form during the Prophet Muḥammad’s lifetime; ii) companions awarded more attention to preserving the Qurʾān through memory than they did in transcribing it; and iii) that the later codification and canonisation primarily benefitted from an oral tradition preserved in memory, even though there is evidence that sections of the Qurʾān were also recorded during the Prophet Muḥammad’s lifetime. What this means is despite the apparent inexistence of a defined Qurʾānic codex, there is nothing to suggest that any later efforts to codify and canonise the Qurʾān will result in failure as they were assisted by a stronger source of knowledge that so happened to be oral in nature.

The Difference Between Earlier Codification and Later Canonisation

The next step is to analyse the attempts of collecting the Qurʾān following the death of the Prophet Muhāmmad. Both Muslim and Western scholars write that the need to textually preserve the Qurʾān was especially realised during the reign of Abū Bakr’s caliphate who was insistently advised by ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb to codify it. However, some Western sources distinguish between Abū Bakr’s earlier collection and ʿUmar’s later collection by classifying the former effort as a means of codification and the latter effort as canonisation. The problem that arises from this distinction is the assumption that earlier codification may have included errors that the later canonisation was obliged to remove. However, this would mean that the ʿUthmānic codex produced later was different to the Qurʾān that was collected under Abū Bakr. This consideration would nullify the value of the pre-existing oral tradition of the Qurʾān as until this point, the main source of access to the Qurʾān was memory and scattered materials that contained fragments of Divine Revelation which, of course, also relied on the memory of those who retained it. In solving this problem, Donner writes:

“As Neuwirth has pointed out the two processes – codification and canonization – are not the same. Codification refers to the process by which a text is established in unvarying form, so that any variant reading is considered “wrong,” or at least not part of the codified text. Canonization refers to the process by which a text assumes a position of authority in a community. However, it is evident that the very act of codifying a text presupposed that the already existing text or texts or textual variants were seen by people as having a special authority in the community – otherwise, why would people take the trouble to codify it at all? As the word implies, the codification process is intended to define the limits of that authority, the exact nature of the claim of the text on its adherents. So codification and canonization, while different processes, are nonetheless intimately related.”[10]

It is clear from this excerpt that although a distinction is drawn between the two periods of collection, i.e. codification and canonisation, they are, nonetheless, related to one another. Assuming otherwise would invalidate any claim to the Qurʾān’s oral authority and as mentioned in an earlier section, the orality of the Qurʾān overarches its need for textual verification. In addition to this, the historical context underpinning both processes are entirely different to one another. In light of this matter, al-Suyūṭī writes:

‘Ibn al-Tīn and various other scholars say, “The difference between Abū Bakr’s and ʿUmar’s collection of the Qurʾān is that Abū Bakr feared that with the death of those who retained the Qurʾān through memory, sections of the Qurʾān could have been lost. This is because at that time the Qurʾān was not collected entirely in one place. Thus Abū Bakr collected codices (maṣāḥif) in the order where each chapter and verse was considered according to the order of the Prophet, upon him and his family salutations and peace. The reason for ʿUthmān’s collection was the disagreements in the oral traditions (qirāʾāt) that were circulating, to the point where people began reciting the Qurʾān in their own languages. […] this is why ʿUthmān took all variant codices and compiled them in one main codex. He ignored all other dialects and preferred the dialect of the Quraysh over all others.”[11]

This excerpt explains that although there was a difference in methods of collection – which may be called early codification of Abū Bakr and the later canonisation of ʿUthmān – this does not imply, however, that the earlier collection was incorrect. It also suggests that there was no disagreement to the contents of variant codices, instead, there was disagreement in variable readings. That variable readings of the Qurʾān still existed after ʿUthmān burnt the other codices[12] is indicative of the dominance the orality of the Qurʾān has over its transcription. In support of this, Madigan writes, “[…] the writing was the servant of the kitāb’s orality. Writing functioned to enable the accurate reproduction of the sounds.”[13] In considering this matter, although the Qurʾānic codices did contain marginal variants it did not affect its overall oral authenticity as, “All the variant maṣāḥif […] relied for their authority on […] attestation of their oral lineage [that] traced back to the Prophet.”[14]

The Role of Oral Transmission in the Preservation of the Qurʾān

This final section will tie together the various arguments that have been presented thus far in order to substantiate the claim that the Qurʾānic muṣḥaf in circulation today may be deemed an authentic replica of ʿUthmān’s codex. As such, after ʿUthmān has standardised his codex, he sent copies to various Islamic regions (amṣār), yet when he was made aware of possible variants he replied, “Do not change [the mistakes], for the Arabs will correct them in their pronunciation.”[15] This once again places the orality of the Qurʾān above its transcription, meaning that so long as it can be proved that an oral tradition still exists today, the authenticity of the modern Qurʾānic muṣḥaf can be confidently argued. In support of this notion, Cook, in an attempt to establish a stemma of the regional codices suggests that despite the variants that existed at the time, they were too marginal to be considered as something wholly different from one another.[16] Adding to this, Donner writes:

“While there are some variants in the qirāʾāt literature, we do not find long passages of otherwise wholly unknown text claiming to be Qurʾān, or that appear to be used as a Qurʾān – only variations within a text that is clearly recognizable as a version of a known Qurʾānic passage.”[17]

The oral transmission of the Qurʾān, as al-Suyūṭī discusses, was given exceptional attention. Chronologically speaking, companions were ordered to travel to the amṣār before ʿUthmān actually sent his codices which means that these companions who taught the second generation of companions had preserved the oral knowledge of the Qurʾān quite rigorously. In his twentieth section of Itqān, al-Suyūṭī explains the complete process according to which companions travelled to the various amṣār and how they established their readings (qirāʾāt).[18] He also discusses that the seven most popular readings of the Qurʾān are connected to seven different scholars and that these readings are dependent upon various conditions, of which two are most significant: firstly, these readings must correspond to the text of the codices; and secondly, in order for a qiraʾt to be accepted its readership must be proven by its frequent narrators (tawātur), otherwise it will fail to qualify as one of the seven original qirāʾāt.[19]

Concluding the Field:

Preservation Through Orality?

In conclusion, each section throughout this paper has demonstrated that the preservation of the Qurʾān does not hinge on its transcription, in fact, it was its oral transmission that was responsible for the success of its subsequent codification and canonisation. Indeed, the Qurʾānic codices of Uthmān travelled to various regions, however, they were in need of reciters as, “[…] a single shape could represent any of the following letters: b, t, th, n, y, or ī.”[20] The importance of these reciters may be assessed by the observation that in this day and age, the mode of recitation (qiraʾt) that is most popular all over the world, including the holy cities of Makkah and Madīnah is the qiraʾt of ʿĀṣim bin Abī al-Nujūd as recorded by his student Ḥafṣ.[21] What is most striking that of the codices, this was not the one that ʿUthmān kept in Madīnah, in fact, both ʿĀṣim and his codex were of Kūfa. This then proves three things: i) although codices contained variants, they were marginal enough to be excused and accepted in different regions; ii) the importance of the oral transmission of the Qurʾān, once again, outweighs the importance of Qurʾānic text and that the latter is dependent on the former for its ratification; and finally iii) although it can be argued that there is no sound textual proof that the current muṣḥaf in circulation today is an authentic replica of the ʿUthmānic codex, it simply does not matter. That this essay has established in each of its sections that text is secondary to the Qurʾān’s orality proves there is an undeniable connection between the muṣḥaf of today and that of ʿUthmān’s. That students are able to trace their lineages of recitation all the way to Ḥafṣ and ʿĀṣim indicates that the oral tradition that was present then is still practised today, not just in isolation, but all over the Muslim world.

 Bibliography

al-Marṣīfī, ʿAbdu ‘l-Fattāḥ al-Sayyid ʿAjamī. Hidāyatu ‘l-Barī ilā Tajwīdi Kalāmi ‘l-Bārī. Madīnah al-Munawwarah: Dāru ‘l-Fajri ‘l-Islāmiyyah, 2005.

Cook, Michael. “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Qur’ān.” In Graeco-Arabica Festschrift in Honour of V. Christides, edited by George K. Livadas, 89—104. Athens, 2004.

Dodge, Bayard. The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth Century Survey of Muslim Culture. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1970.

Donner, Fred M. “The Historical Context.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, 23—39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Donner, Fred M. “The Qur’ān in Recent Scholarship. Challenges and Desiderata.” In The Qurʾān in its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, 29—50. London: Routledge, 2008.

Gilliot, Claude. “Creation of a Fixed Text.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qurʾān, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, 41—57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Graham, William A. “The Earliest Meaning of the Qurʾān.” In The Qurʾān: Style and Contents, edited by Andrew Rippin. Vol. 24 of The Formation of the Classical Islamic World, edited by Lawrence I. Conrad, 159—175. UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001.

Madigan, Daniel A. The Qurʾān’s Self-Image. Writing and Authority in Islam’s Scripture. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Mayer, Toby. Keys to Arcana: Shahrastānī’s Esoteric Commentary on the Qurʾān. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Motzki, Herald. “Alternative Accounts of the Qurʾān’s Formation.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qurʾān, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, 59—75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Schönig, Hanne "Qurʾān." Brill’s New Pauly. Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and, Helmuth Schneider. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Accessed: 29 April 2014 http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/quran-e620080

Whelan, Estelle. “Forgotten Witness: Evidence for the Early Codification of the Qurʾān.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 118, No. 1 (Jan. – Mar., 1998), pp. 1—14.

---

[1] Hanne Schönig, “Qur’ān,” in Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes ed. Hubert Cancik et al. Brill Online (2014), accessed April 29, 2014.

[2] Fred M. Donner, “The Qur’ān in Recent Scholarship. Challenges and Desiderata,” in The Qur’ān in its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds (London: Routledge, 2008), 29.

[3] Fred M. Donner, “The Historical Context,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 26-27.

[4] Muḥammad Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿu ‘l-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīli ʾĀyi ‘l-Qur’ān (Beirut: Daru ‘l-Fikr, 2005), Vol. 14, 10.

[5] Madigan, The Qur’ān’s Self-Image, 20.

[6] Donner, “The Historical Context,” 29.

[7] Jalālu ‘l-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, Itqān fī ʿUlūmi ‘l-Qur’ān (Lahore, Idārah Islāmiyāt, 1982), 188.

[8] Ibid., 154.

[9] Madigan, The Qur’ān’s Self-Image, 14.

[10] Donner, “The Qur’ān in Recent Scholarship,” 41.

[11] al-Suyūṭī, Itqān, 161.

[12] Toby Mayer, Keys to Arcana: Shahrastānī’s Esoteric Commentary on the Qur’ān (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 70.

[13] Madigan, The Qur’ān’s Self-Image, 40.

[14] Ibid., 51.

[15] Ibid., 43.

[16] Michael Cook, “The Stemma of the Regional Codices of the Qur’ān.” In Graeco-Arabica Festschrift in Honour of V. Christides, edited by George K. Livadas (Athens, 2004), 89—104.

[17] Donner, “The Qur’ān in Recent Scholarship,” 42-43.

[18] al-Suyūṭī, Itqān, 188-198.

[19] Ibid., 196.

[20] Madigan, The Qur’ān’s Self-Image, 39.

[21] Bayard Dodge. The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth Century Survey of Muslim Culture (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1970), 64-65; ʿAbdu ‘l-Fattāḥ al-Sayyid ʿAjamī al-Marṣīfī, Hidāyatu ‘l-Barī ilā Tajwīdi Kalāmi ‘l-Bārī (Madīnah al-Munawwarah: Dāru ‘l-Fajri ‘l-Islāmiyyah, 2005), 36-37.