Or so I thought. Having outgrown much of my chidlish naivete, I later realized that one thing must be true: if the accounts regarding the compilation of the Qur'an are much later than the compilation itself, then there is plenty of room for embellishment and sterilization of the accounts. Conversely, if an early account reports some snare in the compilation of the Qur'an or some disagreement, then this is very likely to be a true account, for three reasons: It fits the historical method's principle of early testimony, it fits the historical method's principle of embarassing admission (for what Muslim would want to invent a story which makes the transmission of the Qur'an appear sloppy?), and it would be the only logical explanation of such an account. Thus, when I read early Muslim accounts of the Quran's compilation and find that they disagreed with perfect preservation, my interest was piqued:
-Ibn Abi Daud Kitab al-Masahif
After investigating the issue further, I was shocked by the preponderance of early evidence against Zaid's text. In fact, it would be accurate to believe that Muhammad himself would not consider Zaid's text to be 100% accurate! According to Sahih Bukhari, Muhammad's chosen teachers were four:
- Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 61
First among Muhammad's chosen teachers of the Qur'an was ibn Masud. Yet Ibn Masud is well known to have disagreed with Zaid's text of the Qur'an. The disagreements were not limited to qirrat or minor word variations, but even the number of surahs was not something they agreed on! Ibn Masud, Muhammad's preferred teacher of the Qur'an, did not include al-Faatihah, al-Falaq, or al-Naas in his text! Ibn Masud's text contained only 111 surahs. About Zaid's text (the modern Qur'an), Ibn Masud is reported to have said the following:
- Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 2, p.444
To settle this dispute between Zaid and ibn Masud, why not turn to someone else who Muhammad chose as an excellent teacher of the Qur'an? One of the other four Muhammad hand-picked was Ubay bin Ka'b. But when we turn to Ubay, we find out that he disagreed with both Zaid and ibn Masud, and he included 116 chapters in his Qur'an! However, we do find agreement between his text and ibn Masud's text against Zaid's text (such as the ordering of the surahs) and between his text and ibn Abbas's text (such as verses that Zaid did not include). Beyond this, we find in Ubay's Qur'an verses that Umar considered part of the Qur'an (the Verses of Rajm, or Stoning) which Zaid left out, much to Umar's chagrin.
So what of the modern text of the Qur'an? Without having to make any conclusion myself, I can simply recount the data and say the following:
- Muhammad's chosen teachers disagreed with it
- They disagreed with the number of chapters
- They disagreed with the order of the chapters
- They disagreed with the content of the verses
- Even Umar agreed with Muhammad's teachers against Zaid's Qur'an
The evidence is strong, and the conclusions are overwhelming. It seems that those who gloss over these facts or deny them will remain Quranically confused.