Compilation of the Qur’an

According to Islamic beliefs, the Qur’ān was revealed when Muhammad began proclaiming his faith and reciting portions of it for his followers to memorize. When the Meccans persisted in rejecting Muhammad and his followers, they emigrated to Medina around AD 621. This migration is known in Islamic sources as the Hijra, or Hegira. Then, in Medina, another portion of the Qur’ān was given.

Muhammad was in the habit of asking his scribes to add new verses to different texts. However, this procedure did not apply to all the Qur’ānic passages. What he had left before his death (AH 11/AD 632) were merely scattered fragments written on primitive materials, like leather, clay, and palm leaves. These pieces were not kept with Muhammad or anyone in particular. When the compiling of the Qur’ān was initiated, the compilation committee did not designate any specific person to collect these pieces but asked everyone who held any portion of the Qur’ān to bring it forth. It seems clear that Muhammad had never sought to collect the Qur’ān. One Muslim scholar explained that “Muhammad did not compile the Qur’ān in a book because he anticipated abrogations of some of its rulings or recitations”.

A partial writing of the Qur’ān took place in Medina, which means the Meccan portion of the Qur’ān (two-thirds of the Qur’ānic material) was never written. If there was a possibility that Muhammad wrote some of the texts in Mecca, they must have been lost, because the historical annals do not mention the Muslims taking Qur’ānic texts with them during the Hijra.

In addition, we don’t find in the historical sources any mention of scribes in Mecca. The only possible reference suggesting the existence of a scribe at that time mentions ‘Abd Allah Ibn Abi Sarh, who recounted that he wrote the Qur’ān for Muhammad in Mecca. Later, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Abi Sarh broke off his association with Muhammad and joined the Quraysh after the falsehood of Muhammad’s claims to prophethood became apparent to him.

Ibn Sa‘d quoted a list of “those who compiled the Qur’ān” during Muhammad’s time, listing Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, Mu‘ath Ibn Jabal, Abu al-Darda’, Zayd Ibn Thabit, Sa‘d Ibn ‘Ubayd, Abu Zayd Ibn ‘Ubayd, and Mujma‘ Ibn Jariya. It is further said that Ibn Mas‘ud learned part of the Qur’ān from Mujma‘ Ibn Jariya. Another report mentioned by Ibn Sa‘d adds more names: ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan, Tamim al- Dari, Mu‘ath Ibn Jabal, ‘Ubada Ibn al-Samit, and Aba Ayub.

It seems that the meaning of “compilation” here is actually memorization. The Islamic historiographers unanimously agree that the first compilation of the Qur’ān, in terms of writing it down, happened later under the supervision of Zayd Ibn Thabit. There is no doubt, however, that those who “compiled” the first Qur’ān, whether in writing or by memorizing, gathered it in part, not in whole; there was no written text yet and Muhammad was still amending it by adding to parts of the Qur’ān, abrogating some, and removing others.

We notice that the figures who are said to have collected the Qur’ān during Muhammad’s lifetime, except for ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan, had no social status because they were distant from the decision-making arena. It seems that they were merely loyal to the call of Islam. Considering that ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan was under the criticism of numerous Muslims during his reign, perhaps his name might have been added to this list to confer a kind of holiness upon him.

Therefore, throughout the Meccan period, and during some of the Medina periods, memory was the main tool to record the Qur’ānic passages. However, memory is not a reliable tool, for it failed Muhammad himself. “Hence, we see him comforting the believers in Q 2.106 saying that Allah will grant them in place of each verse that fell victim to forgetfulness a better one”.

First: Abu Bakr’s/‘Umar’s Compilation

Zayd’s First Compilation

The first compilation of the Qur’ān was done by Abu Bakr who succeeded Muhammad in leading the Muslims (AH 11-13/AD 632-634).7 He fought a series of wars against the tribes that refused to submit to the authority of Muslims. These wars (known in the Islamic sources as Hurub al-Ridda, or Wars of Apostasy) ended with a bloody war against Musaylima in al-Yamama (AH 12/AD 633). There, the Muslims achieved a great victory but at a high human toll.

According to the narrations, some of those who were killed in this decisive war were those who had memorized the Qur’ān. Consequently, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab suggested to Abu Bakr that he compile the Qur’ān. In response, Abu Bakr asked him how he could do something that Muhammad wouldn’t do. But ‘Umar defended the rightness of his opinion, saying that more wars would follow the al-Yamama war, and if more preservers of the Qur’ān are killed a large portion of the Qur’ān would be lost. Therefore, “Abu Bakr, concerned that the Qur’ān might be lost,” charged ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab and Zayd Ibn Thabit with the duty of compiling the Qur’ān.

Some accounts alluded to the fears of Abu Bakr concerning the loss of the Qur’ān (without mentioning ‘Umar’s advice) and states in short that “when the Muslims were killed in the al-Yamama war, Abu Bakr was terrified. He feared that a group of preservers of the Qur’ān might perish. So, people came forth with what they had till it was collected on paper during the time of Abu Bakr, the first to compile the Qur’ān in manuscripts”.

The mentioning of “paper” in the narration reveals the manipulation of the stories in the Islamic sources, because the Arabs used papyrus after the occupation of Egypt, during the reign of ‘Umar, and paper was made a century and a half later in Samarqand. Its production in Baghdad did not start until the end of the eighth century AD with the help of the Chinese.

Abu Bakr assigned the duty of compiling the Qur’ān to Zayd because Zayd used to write the Qur’ān for Muhammad: “You are a sensible youth; we have nothing against you. You wrote the revelation to the prophet. Follow the trace of the Qur’ān in order to collect it”.

This assignment was not easy, as explained by Zayd: “If they had assigned me the burden of moving mountains, it would have been easier than what they assigned me. I followed the trace of the Qur’ān from the chests of men [meaning: what the men had committed to memory], the palm leaves, leather pieces, ribs, and pieces of stone and pottery”.

The collection process took place in the following manner:

Abu Bakr sent after those people who were known for their high quality of memorization and asked them to work under the leadership of Zayd. A meeting was held in the house of ‘Umar to discuss the manner of how to compile the Qur’ān and to divide the tasks.14 They asked Bilal to announce in Medina to those who had in their possession written Qur’ānic pieces to submit them to the writing committee. The testimony of two people was required to confirm a piece was Qur’ānic.

One interesting story is told that ‘Umar brought to the committee the verse on stoning (al-rajīm), but Zayd did not notate it because ‘Umar had no one to bear witness except himself.

The process of compiling lasted about a year. Having completed the task, Zayd handed it over to Abu Bakr. Then ‘Umar received it when he became the successor (caliph). The manuscripts ended up with his daughter, Hafsa, after his death.

Second: ‘Uthman’s Compilation

Zayd’s Second Compilation

A singular story narrates that ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan collected the Qur’ān during the reign of ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab. It is not understood from this story if ‘Uthman compiled the Qur’ān by himself or if he participated in the work of the committee of Zayd. However, if what is meant is that he participated in the committee, the story is acceptable.

Approximately the year AH 25, (or, it is also said, AH 30), ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan made the decision to compile the Qur’ān. That decision was made after conflicts arose between Muslims about the Qur’ānic variant readings. The conflict concerning the difference in wording was widely spread:

Iraq: The Islamic armies included competing tribes and clans. Based on this clan division, conflicts arose among the Muslims on various issues, including the Qur’ān. A schism occurred between the people of Basra who recited their Qur’ān according to how Abu Musa read it and the people of Kufa who recited their Qur’ān according to how Ibn Mas‘ud read it.

Iraq/Syria (al-Sham): The dissension over who had the right Qur’ān spread outside Iraq. When the Muslim combatants from Iraq and those from the Syria (al-Sham) were together fighting at the boarders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, they started quarrelling about the question of who had the right Qur’ān. The people of Hums considered the codex of al-Muqdad Ibn al-Aswad the most credible one, while the rest of the people of Syria held to the codex of Ibn Ka‘b. The people of Kufa considered Ibn Mas‘ud’s recitation to be the standard one, while the people of Basra considered Abi Musa’s text to be the most reliable one. The reports about the quarrels reached ‘Uthman.

Medina: The dissension over the reading had also spread in Medina, which was the heart of Islam at that time. Even the teachers of the youngsters were in dispute: “Some of them even counted the others’ reading to be blasphemous. That news reached ‘Uthman as well, so he rose up and said, ‘You are in my presence, yet you disagree about it, and say it incorrectly. Those who are in faraway regions are even in more disagreement and grammatical incorrectness. Gather ye, O companions of Muhammad, and write for the people an Imam [a standard to follow]”.

He also said, “Your prophet was just taken fifteen years ago, and you already disagree about the Qur’ān’s text itself!?”

Moreover, the expansion of Muslims and their mixing with other people groups led to the blending of languages. So it appeared that the evolutionary linguistic process would put the Qur’ān “in jeopardy of corruption, distortion, addition and deletion”.

Reliance on Hafsa’s Manuscript

There is no doubt that the presence of hundreds of Qur’ānic manuscripts among the Muslims nurtured the schism in the different cities (Kufa, Basra, Medina) and regions (Iraq, Syria) over which Qur’ān was the standard one. A historian estimated the number of codices at the end of ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab’s reign (AH 13-23/AD 634-644) to be 100,000 codices distributed in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt.

We don’t agree with this estimate, which is not based on historical data but only on assumptions. Even if there were a large number of manuscripts at that time in each city, there should have remained at least a few.

Certainly all the copies of the Qur’ān were partial ones and not the complete manuscript. Some might have had a few suras, while others could have had larger portions. However, it is highly unlikely that 100,000 complete copies of the Qur’ān existed then. If this was true, we would have at least tens of these manuscripts today.The first compilation attempt revealed that the written Qur’ānic manuscripts were spread among many Muslims, not taking into account the parts of the Qur’ān that were committed to memory only. The only copy that was completed by Zayd’s first committee took more than a year to compile. It was the only copy that was considered somewhat complete and was ultimately given to Hafsa for safekeeping. No extra copies of it were made for circulation.

Since the only unique compiled copy was the one entrusted to Hafsa, ‘Uthman asked her to submit it so that it would become the basis for the work he was about to start. He appointed an editing committee consisting of Zayd Ibn Thabit, Sa‘id Ibn al-‘As, ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn al-Harith Ibn Hisham, and ‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Zubayr. In another account the list included Zayd Ibn Thabit, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Mru Ibn al-‘As, ‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Zubayr, Ibn ‘Abbas, and ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn al-Harith Ibn Hisham. From another source we see that ‘Uthman appointed a committee of twelve men from the two groups, the Emigrants (al-Muhajirun) and the Helpers (al-Ansar).

‘Uthman asked the compilation committee to write the Qur’ān in the language of the Quraysh. This condition is attributed to ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, who had required the members of Zayd’s initial committee to write the Qur’ān in “the language of Mudhar”.

After the committee completed the task entrusted to it, several copies were made and distributed to those present. ‘Uthman also sent copies to the Islamic governing centers, ordering the governors to destroy the codices in their possession. He sent a copy each to Kufa, Basra, and Syria, and he kept one for himself. It is said that seven copies were made and that ‘Uthman sent them to Mecca, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Basra, and Kufa. He also left one in Medina. The Islamic view tends to prefer the story that he sent four copies.

After that, ‘Uthman returned Hafsa’s copy to her, and she kept it until the days of the rule of Marwan Ibn al-Hakam. After her death, Marwan asked ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar (Hafsa’s brother) to send him the copy.36 ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar sent it to Marwan, who burned it, “fearing something might be different from what ‘Uthman copied”.

No opposition was reported to ‘Uthman’s action, except the objection of Ibn Mas‘ud. The prominent figures in Medina supported the decision of unifying the Qur’ān. Historical sources agree that ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib recognized ‘Uthman for his work in compiling the Qur’ān and said, “O ye people, do not malign ‘Uthman and say nothing but good to him regarding the masahif [codices] and the burning of masahif, for by Allah he did what he did to the masahif in the presence of us all”. ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib announced that if he was in power, he would have done what ‘Uthman did about this matter.

Ibn Mas‘ud’s Rejection

Ibn Mas‘ud refused to acknowledge the ‘Uthmanic codex for personal reasons. His heart was filled with hatred because he was excluded from the compilation committee. He said, “O Muslims! I get removed from writing down the Qur’ān’s copies, and the charge is given to a man [Zayd], that by Allah, when I became a Muslim, he was still in the custody within the inner being of his father (i.e., before conception), a kafir (infidel)”.

Ibn Mas‘ud believed that he had the right to supervise the writing of the Qur’ān. He said bitterly, “I learned from the mouth of (Muhammad) seventy suras, while Zayd Ibn Thabit barely had two locks of hair and was playing with the boys”.

Ibn Mas‘ud pushed the people of Kufa to reject the official Qur’ān imposed by ‘Uthman’s decision. As a result, the people of Kufa stayed firm to the codex of Ibn Mas‘ud until al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi came to power.

Difference Between the Two Compilations

Abu Bakr’s Compilation vs. ‘Uthman’s Compilation

The story that claims that the decision of Abu Bakr to compile the Qur’ān was the result of the outcome of al-Yamama’s battle cannot be accepted, for those who were killed in the battle that had knowledge of the Qur’ān were few. “Actually, we find…only two of those who fell dead in the battle were clearly recognized for their knowledge in Qur’ān. They are ‘Abd Allah Ibn Hafas Ibn Ghanim and Salem, both followers of Abu Huthayfa”. It is obvious that the decision of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar to compile the Qur’ān aimed to secure a comprehensive copy of the Qur’ānic passages in one place. In other words, the compiling and archiving of the Qur’ān was motivated by the fear that it could get lost.

The compilation of ‘Uthman, on the other hand, was motivated by a desire to unify and standardize the differences between the versions. After the spread of Islam across the Arabian Peninsula, the Arabs started reading the Qur’ān according to their various languages. ‘Uthman saw that this led “to some of them calling others deviant in their reading. He feared the escalation of this matter and therefore copied those Qur’ānic copies into one Qur’ān organized in suras. Of all the languages he could have chosen, he selected the Quraysh language, arguing that the revelation came down in that tongue. If the Qur’ān was spread in different languages for ease and comfort at the beginning, now that need was no longer there. Hence he limited it to one language”.

Al-Harith al-Muhasibi explains, “What is known among the people is that the compiler of the Qur’ān is ‘Uthman. It is not so. ‘Uthman made the people read one version, a choice made between him and his contemporaries of the Emigrants and Helpers”.

‘Uthman’s endeavor for unification was based on political motivations. The Muslims were in need of a bond to hold them together and Islam was the common agent. Since the Qur’ān is the holy book of Islam, differences over the book would weaken the bond among Muslims. Imposition of one single reading (one book) was needed to promote political unity. The fear of weakening the unity was more important than maintaining variety in the Qur’ān. When Muhammad allowed individuals to read the Qur’ān according to their tribal language and allowed the multiplicity of readings, he was then a leader of political and religious formation confined to Medina and its surrounding areas. Later, during ‘Uthman’s time, the political and religious situation became more complicated. ‘Uthman had to tackle the Qur’ānic text in accordance with the needs of a society undergoing developmental growth and military expansion.

The completion of the Qur’ān was not free from flaws:

First, when the Qur’ān was presented to ‘Uthman, he said, “It [the Qur’ān] has grammatical flaws (lahn) and the Arabs will fix them according to their tongues”. He further said, “If the writer was from Thaqif such issues would not be found in it”. Some requested that he endeavor to complete the necessary revisions. When the verse Q 20.63 was recited in his presence, it was suggested to him that it should be corrected. But he refused, saying, “Let it be. It does not forbid what is permitted nor permit what is forbidden”.

Second, there was another imperfection in the Qur’ān, in that it did not have the dots on the letters or the accents.

This omission was no different from other versions of the Qur’ān:

It was up to the reader himself to place the dots on the letters of the words and to set the accents according to the meaning of the verses. For example, one would read the word as يُعَلِّمُهُ :Yu ‘allimuhu (“He teaches it/him”), another نُعَلِّمُهُ: Nu ‘allimahu (“We teach it/him”), yet another تُعْلِمْهُ: Tu‘alimhu (“You teach it/him”), and بِعِلْمِهِ: bi‘ilmihi (“by his knowledge”), etc., by placing the dots and the accents according to the reader’s interpretation of the verse. Moreover, many readers chose (preferred) readings of the Qur’ān that were forbidden by ‘Uthman, as can be seen in the books of the variant readings of the Qur’ān.

The absence of dotting kept the issue of the multiple readings present, which required a new intervention by the political authority. This intervention took place when al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi revised some of the Qur’ānic passages.

Third: Multiple Codices

When ‘Uthman initiated the unification of the Qur’ānic readings, he relied on Hafsa’s copy but did not strictly copy it. His committee started the process of reviewing and revising Hafsa’s copy, or codex, as well as organizing the suras. When ‘Uthman ordered the unified reading, he left room for individual codices. He did not destroy Hafsa’s copy but returned it back to her. He also did not pursue the owners of these copies, for the sources we have contain a list of other codices:

Salim Ibn Ma‘qal’s codex.

‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas’s codex.

‘Aqaba Ibn ‘Amir’s codex. He ruled Egypt later and had a codex that was found in the year AH 313/AD 925, but it is now lost.

Al-Muqdad Ibn al-Aswad’s codex.

Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari’s codex. His codex spread in Basra. It resembles to a great extent the codices of Ibn Mas‘ud and Ibn Ka‘b. It was known to be in disagreement with ‘Uthmanic codex.

Ibn Ka‘b’s codex.

‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas‘ud’s codex.

‘A’isha’s codex.

‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib’s codex.

‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Zubayr’s codex.

‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar’s codex.

Um Salma’s (Muhammad’s wife’s) codex.

Historical sources also list names of people belonging to the second generation of Muslims (the successors), who had their own codices (masahif): ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Umayr al-Laythi, ‘Atta’ Ibn Abi Rabah, ‘Akrama, Mujahid, Sa‘id Ibn Jubayr, al-Aswad Ibn Yazid, ‘Alqama Ibn Qays, Muhammad Ibn Abi Musa, Hatan Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Raqashi, Saleh Ibn Kisan, and Talha Ibn Musrif.

We will address below two other codices, for they hold more material than the one in circulation.

Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b’s Codex

Accounts tell us that Ubayy participated in the first compilation committee. It seems that it helped him in preparing his own special Qur’ān. It differs from ‘Uthman’s approved codex in the order of suras. However, what distinguishes Ubayy’s version the most is the fact that it contains two additional suras: al-Khal‘ and al-Hafd. These were published in an edited form by Hammer and later Nöldeke reedited and published them.

‘Ali’s Codex

‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib supposedly had his own Qur’ān. According to some Islamic sources, ‘Ali collected the Qur’ān after Muhammad’s death, when he swore not to leave his house “until the Qur’ān is compiled in one book.” However, this claim has no solid ground. If ‘Ali had actually collected a codex of his own, he would have had to stay home and work on it during the entire ruling period of Caliphs Abu Bakr and, perhaps, ‘Umar. (See an examination of this issue in the article “The Chronological Sequence of the Qur’ān”) In defense of ‘Ali’s claim, al-Sijistani explains that the expression “compile the Qur’ān” means to memorize it.

Over the next several decades the different Muslim groups increasingly clashed over religious leadership, proper religious practices, and a correct Qur’ān. According to Shiite opinion, ‘Ali should have been the first successor to Muhammad so they believe his copy of the Qur’ān is the correct version and any other copy is corrupted:

[Some Shiites said,] “We found the nation (umma) differing in its [the Qur’ān’s] transfer greatly and horrendously. Due to the greatness of their difference, we became unable to distinguish its correctness from its corruption, or its shortage from excess [what was taken out, or added to it], nor do we know the order of everything in what was revealed, neither what comes before nor after.” Some of their people said, “No one knows about what is missing of it except the Imam, who was given the knowledge thereof, and to his followers [as well]”. Those who denied any addition to it (the Qur’ān) but affirmed that it was missing [portions] said, “Abu Bakr and his followers were the ones who took charge of setting and organizing it, and putting it, or most of it, in suras (chapters), bringing up the rear and pushing back the front; hence, many verses were misplaced and verses were removed from their deserving places”.

The Shiites accused Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman of tampering with the Qur’ān. The Shiites said that Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman deleted all the paragraphs referring to ‘Ali and his family and omitted from the current version verses directing criticism to the “Helpers and Emigrants for committing improper behavior”. In the fourth century AH, the writings of the Shiites referred to corruption in about five hundred verses in the Qur’ān.

In spite of this contention, the Shiites today consider the circulated Qur’ān a holy book and they will continue to use it until the coming of al-Mahdi, who they believe will bring the true uncorrupted Qur’ān.

Since the fourth century AH, the Shiite school has doubted the truthfulness of the current Qur’ān being Muhammad’s Qur’ān. It has adhered to its view that the Qur’ān has been subjected to different corruptions, including a change of sequence of the suras and verses, omissions and additions. A version of the Qur’ān with two additional suras , al-Nurayn and al-Wilaya, had spread in the Shiites’ clerical circles. In 1842, Gracin de Tassy published sura al-Nurayn, but Mirza Kazem Beg doubted its originality, while Tisdall accepted the possibility of its authenticity. Further, in 1913, he published sura al-Wilaya after he found it in a Shiite manuscript, where the name of ‘Ali is explicitly mentioned. The Shiite fabrication in sura al-Wilaya is unquestionable. However, sura al-Nurayn suggests certain authenticity, and it is worth mentioning since it is the subject of debate among researchers.

Conclusion

The political issues of the time motivated the compilation of the Qur’ān, and that initiation came from ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab. The work started in the time of Abu Bakr, but it appears that the compiling was not completed in the time of Abu Bakr. Therefore, ‘Umar continued with the task of compiling and that is why some sources claim that ‘Umar was the first to compile the Qur’ān. One source says that ‘Umar ordered the collection of the Qur’ānic passages, but he was killed while work was underway, so ‘Uthman worked to complete the task.

In all these accounts, Zayd Ibn Thabit was always the head of the compilation committee, although he had not reached ten years of age when Muhammad arrived at Medina. However, Abu Bakr chose him for many reasons, which he reveals in a comment to Zayd: “You are a righteous youth; [we have nothing against you,] we don’t accuse you. You used to write the revelation”.

First, Zayd’s young age and lack of personal ambition removed any possible animosity with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

Second, Zayd was writing the Qur’ān for Muhammad, and they say he learned the Jewish language.

After years of ‘Uthman’s reign, Muslims started fighting over the readings of the Qur’ān: the Kufis and the Basran, the Iraqis and the Syrians. There were conflicts within Medina as well. Therefore, ‘Uthman decided to release an official copy. He chose Zayd for the same reasons that led Abu Bakr to choose him. Moreover, Zayd had developed significant experience in the compiling and writing of the manuscript. ‘Uthman also had to work to keep certain persons like ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas‘ud away from the committee.

‘Uthman intended that his manuscript unify the Qur’ānic readings and eliminate the cause of discord among the Muslims. He collected the readings into one version so that he could provide a basis for consensus. It is said that what ‘Uthman did was merely “putting the suras in order”. There is no doubt that this compilation served a political agenda, but it was at a historical cost. The readings of that period were missed, and by that omission we lost part of the Qur’ānic heritage, even though some of the readings are scattered and preserved in the commentaries and in rare works. Most notable among these works are Kitab al-Masahif by Ibn ’Abi Dawood al-Sijistani (third century AH) and al-Muhtasib by Abu al-Fateh ‘Uthman Ibn Jenni (fourth century AH).

However, ‘Uthman’s attempt to make one unified text was not successful, for ‘Uthman himself kept Hafsa’s codex, as well as the personal codices belonging to the first generation of Muslims. Further, the followers owned their own special codices. Within a few years conflict again arose over the reading because the new ‘Uthmanic version was not dotted and required a reader with prior knowledge of the reading material. (See the “Illustration of Variant Readings'' concerning the effect of dots on a transcription in the article “Variant Readings of the Qur’ān”).

As a result, the verses were merely interpreted according to the understanding of the reader most of the time. Three centuries would pass after the compilation of the ‘Uthmanic codex before the final copy of a dotted Qur’ān would appear in the fourth century AH (tenth century AD).

In the modern era, Muslims still have two separate readings:

Reading of Hafs (d. AH 190/AD 805) according to ‘Asim (d. AH 127/AD 744), which was approved by al-Azhar in its print of the Qur’ān in 1924 and circulated in the largest part of the Islamic world.

Reading of Warsh (d. AH 197/AD 812) according to Nafi‘ (d. AH 169/AD 785) used in north Africa.

Today, the Qur’ān that is circulated among Muslims with both readings is nothing but two versions that have been revised repeatedly over three centuries.

Fortunately, the San‘a’ (Sana) manuscript was discovered in 1972, during the restoration of an ancient mosque on the brink of falling. This manuscript contains unknown readings. It is the oldest Qur’ānic manuscript currently available. The German Orientalist, G. Puin, conducted research on the manuscript and found that significant changes were made to the Qur’ān. What this discovery tells us is that the present Qur’ān is not Muhammad’s Qur’ān. As a result of these serious discoveries, Yemeni authorities banned Puin from access to these manuscripts.

The issue of the history of the Qur’ānic text is still subject to research. The most controversial hypothesis was raised by researcher John Wansbrough, who announced that the Qur’ān continued to be compiled for two to three centuries after the death of Muhammad. He added that the final wording of the Qur’ān emerged outside the Arabian Peninsula in monotheistic societies, particularly in Iraq and Syria. However, another researcher of this issue observed that the internal structure of the Qur’ān does not support Wansbrough’s assumption but reveals instead that it was compiled before (AH 41/AD 661).

The discovery of more manuscripts and newer, more advanced research methods will allow us to identify the added layers to the Qur’ān during the process of the compilation, writing, and repeated revision. One day science may be able to access the first edition of the Qur’ān—the original version that was declared by Muhammad to the Muslims.

Summary

Muhammad leaves some parts of the Qur’ān on primitive writing materials while others commit his words to memory.

Abu Bakr and ‘Umar take action to archive the Qur’ānic material, fearing its potential loss.

‘Uthman works on revising the Qur’ān that was organized by the first compilation committee, and, in the meantime, tries to destroy the other versions.

The issue of variant readings remains persistent because of the absence of dotting and supplementary diacritics.

The political and religious authorities revise the Qur’ān repeatedly until the dotted Qur’ān is published.

sources discuss the compilation and revisions of the Qur’ān.

Gilliot, Claude. “Reconsidering the Authorship of the Qur’an: Is the Qur’an Partly the Fruit of a Progressive and Collective Work.” The Qur’an in Its Historical-Context.

Ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds. London: Routledge, 2008. 88-108. Print.

Jeffery, Arthur, ed. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’ān: The Old Codices. New York: AMS Press, 1975. Print.The only in-depth study of variations in the Qur’ānic text in early Islāmic history. Originally published in 1937; requires knowledge of Arabic. Sell, Edward. The Recensions of the Qur’an. Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1909. Print.

This article details Shiite additions to the Qur’ān, especially sūra al-Wilāya:

St.-Clair Tisdall, William. “Shi‘ah Additions to the Koran.” Moslem World 3.3 (1913): 227-241. Print.

These sources discuss the restoration, research, and controversy concerning the S. an‘ā’(Sana) manuscripts, discovered in 1972.

Lester, Toby. “What Is the Koran?” Atlantic Monthly. Jan. 1999. Atlantic Monthly Group. Web. 31 Aug. 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.htm>.

References

1. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 378. 2. Ibid. 377. 3. Jabal 162-163. 4. al-Zamakhsharī 2: 372; al-T. abarī 9: 405-406. 5. Ibn Sa‘d 2: 306-307. 6. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 39. 7. al-Sijistānī 11-12; al-Dānī 13. 8. al-Sijistānī 13; al-Dānī 15. 9. al-Sijistānī 12. 10. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 378. 11. Stipčević 1: 219-220; compare with Déroche 173. 12. al-Dānī 16; al-Zarkashī 1: 233; al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 379. 13. al-Zarkashī 1: 233; al-Sijistānī 14, 15, 28; compare with al-Dānī 13-14. 14. Jar Allah 26. 15. Ibid. 27. 16. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 383. 17. Ibid. 385. 18. Jabal 187. 19. al-Sijistānī 15. 20. Ibn Sa‘d 2: 307. 21. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 389. 22. al-Sijistānī 20. 23. Ibid. 26-28. 24. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 297. 25. al-Sijistānī 18. 26. Ibid. 29; al-Dānī 17. 27. al-Sijistānī 32. 28. al-H. arīrī 169. 29. Jar Allah 28. 30. al-Dānī 14. 31. al-Sijistānī 33-34. 32. Ibid. 17-18. 33. al-Sijistānī 26; al-Dānī 16. 34. al-Dānī 19. 35. al-Sijistānī 16. 36. Ibid. 32. 37. Ibid. 28. 38. al-Dānī 18. 39. al-Sijistānī 30; compare with al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 391. 40. al-Dānī 18; compare with al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 393. 41. al-Sijistānī 24-25. 42. Ibid. 21-22. 43. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 280, 339. 44. Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān 1: 348. 45. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 253. 46. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 391.612 The Qur’ān 47. Ibid. 392. 48. al-Sijistānī 41. 49. Ibid. 42. 50. al-Qurt.ubī 14: 90. 51. Jeffery, Introduction 7-8. 52. al-Sijistānī 59-130. 53. al-H. arīrī 164-166; compare with Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 259-261, which has a list with less numbers; also compare with al-Sijistānī 92-98. 54. al-Sijistānī 98-102. 55. Jabal 176. 56. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 266-267. 57. al-Sijistānī 16. 58. al-Bāqilānī 71. 59. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 322-323. 60. Ibid. 324. 61. Ibid. 323. 62. Leaman 31. 63. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 229-231; compare with Sell 22-24. 64. al-Sijistānī 16. 65. Ibid. 17. 66. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 378. 67. Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān 1: 331-332. 68. Ibid. 1: 334; compare with Jeffery, Introduction 8-9. 69. Leaman 31. 70. Lester. 71. Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān 1: 334; Böwering 74. 72. Donner 33.