did al-hajjaj change the qu'ran

8/3/2019 Did Al-Hajjaj Change the Qu'Ran

1/17


2/17

The translation of the report is as follows:

Section: What al-Hajjaj Had Changed in Ùthman's M ushaf?

Abu Bakr said that it was there in the book of my father that a man told; I asked my father, "Who wasthat man?". He said, "Abbad ibn Suhayb told us from Awf ibn Abi Jamila that al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf changedin Ùthman's mushaf 11 letters". He said in

al-Baqarah (2:259) lam yatasanna w anzur without ha to lam yatasannah with ha .

and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shariàtan wa minhajan was changed to shiràtan wa minhajan

and in Yunus (10:22) huw al-ladhi yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum

and in Yusuf (12:45) ana-atikum b ita'w ilihi was changed to ana ona bbio'kum bita'w ilihi

and in Mu'minun (23:85-89) sayaquluna lillah....lillah....lillah he made the two last occurrencesallah....allah

and in al-Shuàra in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhrajina and in the story of Lut (26:167) it

-Hajjaj Change The Qu'ran? http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/hajjaj.htm

7 1/8/2012 7


3/17

was minal marjumina . It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjumina and in the story of Lut tominal mukhrajina

and in al-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamna b aynahum ma` ishahum and he changed it tomaìshatahum

and in al-ladhina kafaru (47:15) min maìnn ghayri ya sin was changed to min maìnn ghayri asin

and in al-Hadid (57:7) he changed fal-ladhina amanu minkum w at-taqaw lahum ajrun kabir to minkum

wa anfaqu.

and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) w a ma huw a àla-l-ghaybi bidhanin to bidanin [1]

In other words, the report says that al-Hajjaj made eleven changes in Ùthman's mushaf and these changesare documented.

Instead of reading carefully what has been mentioned in the report, the Orientalists and missionaries haveinvolved themselves in myth-making and taking it to almost delirious levels. Based on this report al-Hajjajhas been accused of "undertaking a completely new recension" or a "minor recension" or even changing the

Ùthmanic recension of the Qur'an. Let us list them one by one.

According to Arthur Jeffery, the action of al-Hajjaj resulted in an "entirely new recension of the Qur'an" andthat al-Hajjaj ordered the "new copies of his text sent to the great metropolitan centres."

When we come to examine the accounts of the activity of al-Hajjaj in this matter, however, we discover toour own surprise that the evidence points strongly to the fact that his work was not confined to fixingmore precisely the text of the Qur'an by a set of points showing how it was to be read, but he seems tohave made an entirely new recension of the Qur'an, having copies of his new text sent to the greatmetropolitan centres and ordering the destruction of earlier copies in existence there, much as Ùthmanhad done earlier. Moreover, this new text promulgated by al-Hajjaj seems to have undergone more or less

extensive alterations.

[2]

Obviously the report in Kitab al-Masahif does not say any such thing as what has been claimed by Jeffery.Taking a clue from Arthur Jeffery, a Christian apologist called Chad VanDixhoorn states :

Others yet hold that the final form was not finally settled until the recension of al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf.

The author of the article "The Qur'an" in the book Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period prefers "a minor recension" instead of an "entirely new recension of the Qur'an". He conjectures:

On the other hand we have the tradition in Ibn Abi-Da'ud that al-Hajjaj was responsible for eleven

changes in the consonantal text. If this is so, he is responsible for a minor recension at least.[3]

According to the claim of missionary John Gilchrist

During the caliphate of Abd al-Malik in the first century of Islam the governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf,took steps to correct Uthman's text. He is said to have made eleven direct changes to the Qur'an text asit stood in its consonantal form, all of which are reflected in the Qur'an as it stands today.... The wholesection continues to name each one of the amendments made by al-Hajjaj so that the Qur'an text as wehave it today is not only the Uthmanic text but also a subsequent minor recension of it by the Iraqigovernor.


7 1/8/2012 7


4/17

Gilchrist claims that the alleged changes made by al-Hajjaj, as seen in Kitab al-Masahif , were made to the"Ùthmanic text" and that it was a "minor recension". The Qur'an that we have today is a combination of "Ùthmanic text" and the"minor recension".

That the "Qur'an of Uthman" has been altered is also championed by "Brother Mark". He says:

The insistence that this was 'merely' altering the Qur'an of Uthman from one set of 'accepted readings'toanother is little comfort to people who have been taught that NO CHANGES have ever occurred to the

Qur'anic text.

Similarly, the missionary Jochen Katz has fantasized the following about the changes that al-Hajjaj made to"Uthman's Koran":

he gave himself the liberty to change several words of Caliph Uthman's Koran, which is an indication thathe did not believe that the Koran was verbally inspired or was inscribed in a "tablet preserved".

The next in the category are those missionaries whose statements can be called demented. According toSteven Masood, al-Hajjaj was "accused" of making eleven changes in the text (sorry, who accused whom!):

Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusaf (694-714), the viceroy of Iraq, is said to have directed the work. He was also accusedof making changes in the text. Ibn Abi Dawood lists these amendments in considerable detail in the

chapter Ma Ghaira al-Hajjaj fi Mushaf Usman - 'What was altered by al-Hajjaj in the Uthmanic text'. [4]

Another missionary in this category is Joseph Smith. He claims that the eleven "distinct" amendments thatal-Hajjaj made were reduced to "seven readings"!

We also know from Muslim tradition that the Uthmanic Qur'an had to be reviewed and amended to meetthe Caliph's standard for a single approved text even after Uthman's death. This was carried out byal-Hajjaj, the governor of Kufa, who made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text, whichwere later reduced to seven readings.

Summarizing, the report says that al-Hajjaj made eleven changes in Ùthman's mushaf. This has beenmysteriously and mythically transformed as if al-Hajjaj "undertook a completely new recension" or a made"minor recension" or even completely changed the Ùthmanic recension of the Qur'an! Apart from suchabsurdities, neither the Orientalists nor the missionaries checked the authenticity of the report; a methodfrequently employed to supress the information and to attack the Qur'an. Let us now check the authenticityof this report mentioned in Ibn Abi Dawud's Kitab al-Masahif .

3. Hadith Criticism Of The Report: The Study of Isnad

Hadith critics at first look at the isnad and if it is defective, they call the hadith defective, withoutscrutinizing the subject matter; because a hadith , according to their criteria, cannot be authnetic unless bothits parts are correct. [5] Using this criteria let us first study the isnad .

The isnad of this report is Awf bin Abi Jamila Àbbad Ibn Suhayb Abu Bakr Father of Abu Bakr.Study of reliability of narrators in this isnad shows that Àbbad Ibn Suhayb is the one who had beendeclared weak and his hadith is rejected.

Al-Bukhari very tersely says in his Duàfa al-Saghir :


7 1/8/2012 7


5/17

228 - Àbbad Ibn Suhayb al-Basri: Abandoned. [6]

Similarly al-Nasa'i says in his Duàfa wa-l-Matrukin :

(411) Àbbad Ibn Suhayb al-Basri: His hadith is rejected ( matruk al-hadith ). [7]

Ibn Abi Hatim comments in his Kitab al-Jarh wa-l-Ta`dil :

417 - Àbbad Ibn Suhayb al-Basri narrated from Ismaìl Ibn Abi Khalid and Hisham Ibn Ùrwah and thetwo Hijazis. Narrated from him people who did not understand the science. Àbd al-Rahman told us that

Àbdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hanbal wrote to us: "I asked my father about Àbbad IbnSuhayb." He said: "I saw him in Basra several times. The qadariyyah used to claim him." It was read toal-Àbbas Ibn Muhammad al-Duri from Yahya Ibn Maìn that he mentioned Àbbad Ibn Suhayb and saidthat it was narrated from Abu Bakr Ibn Nafi` - and Abu Bakr Ibn Nafi` is a senior from whom Malik IbnAnas narrated - that Àbd al-Rahman told us: My father told me: "Àli Ibn al-Madini said: 'The hadith of Àbbad Ibn Suhayb is gone.'" Àbd al-Rahman told us, Hab Ibn Ismaìl [al-Kirmani] wrote to me: "I heardAbu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaybah say: 'We forsook the hadith of Àbbad Ibn Suhayb twenty years before hedemised.'" Àbd al-Rahman told us: "I asked my father about Àbbad Ibn Suhayb. He said: 'His hadith is

weak ( daìf ). His hadith is disavowed ( munkar ). His hadith is forsaken.'" [8]

Similarly Ibn Hibban says in Kitab al-Majruhin min al-Muhaddithin wa-l-Duàfa wa-l-Matrukin :


7 1/8/2012 7


6/17

Àbbad Ibn Suhayb: From Basra. He narrated from Hisham Ibn Ùrwah and al-A`mash. The Iraqis narratedfrom him. He belonged to the qadariyyah and called to it. On the top of that, he narrated disavowednarrations from famous people, such narrations, if heard by a beginner in this field, he would deem themforged.

It was narrated from Hisham Ibn Ùrwah from his father from À'ishah that the Prophet - peace be uponhim - said: "Blue eyes are a blessing." Ibn Àràrah informed me of this narration in Nasibin saying:"Muhammad ibn Musa said on the authority of Àbbad Ibn Suhayb."

It was narrated from Humayd al-Tawil that Anas said: "I entered at the Messenger of Allah - peace beupon him. There was a recipient full of water before him. He told me: 'Anas, come close to me so that Iteach you how to perform wudu' .' I went close to him - peace be upon him. When he washed his hands,he said: 'In the name of Allah, praise to Allah, there is no power nor strength except in Allah'. Then whenhe performed the istinja' , he said: 'O Allah, preserve my chastity and ease my affairs.' When he washedhis mouth and nose, he said: 'O Allah, teach me my argument and do not deprive me from the scent of Paradise.' When he washed his face, he said: 'O Allah, make my face white on the day when the faces


7 1/8/2012 7


7/17

become white.' When he washed his arms, he said: 'O Allah, give me my book in the right hand.' When hewiped his head, he said: 'O Allah, overwhelm us with Your mercy and protect us from your punishment.'When he washed his feet, he said: 'O Allah, make my feet unshakable upon the day when the feet falter.'Then, the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: 'By the One Who sent me with the truth, Anas, whoeversays the same in his wudu' , from each drop that falls from his fingers, Allah creates an angel that praiseshim in seventy tongues, the reward of which lasts until the day of resurrection.'" This was narrated to us

by Ya`qub Ibn Ishaq al-Qadi on the authority of Ahmad Ibn Hisham al-Khawarizmi, from him. [9]

Al-Dhahabi says in his Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal :


7 1/8/2012 7


8/17

4122 - Àbbad Ibn Suhayb, one of the abandoned. He narrated from Hisham Ibn Ùrwah and al-A`mash.Ibn al-Madini said: "His hadith is gone." Al-Bukhari, al-Nasa'i and others said: "Abandoned." Ibn Hibbansaid: "He belonged to qadariyyah and called to it. On the top of that, he narrated disavowed narrationsfrom famous people, such narrations, if heard by a beginner in this field, he would deem them forged."

Muhammad Ibn Musa said, Àbbad Ibn Suhayb informed us on the authority of Hisham from his father fromÀ'ishah that the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: "Blue eyes are a blessing."

A lengthy but fabricated hadith was narrated from Humayd on the authority of Anas concerning the wudu'from which we quote: "When he washed his face, he said: 'O Allah, make my face white...'" until he said:"'Anas, whoever says the same in his wudu' , from each drop that falls from his fingers, Allah creates anangel that praises him in seventy tongues, the reward of which lasts until the day of resurrection.'"Narrated by Ibn Hibban on the authority of Ya`qub Ibn Ishaq [3/30] al-Qadi, from Ahmad Ibn Hishamal-Khawarizmi, from him.

Al-Bukhari said in Kitab al-Du afa' al-Kabir : Àbbad Ibn Suhayb died after year 200. He was forsaken, hishadith is abundant.

Abu Dawud said: "He is truthful ( saduq ) and qadari ". Ahmad said: "He was not a liar and had plenty of hadith . He heard from al-A`mash." Al-Kudaymi said: "I heard Àli say: 'I forsook 100 thousand hadiths of mine, half of which come from Àbbad Ibn Suhayb'."

Ahmad Ibn Rawh narrated from Àbbad 100,000 hadiths . Ibn Àdiyy said: "Àbbad Ibn Suhayb has manywritings, and although he is weak, his hadith is written by Ibn Abi Dawud."

Yahya Ibn Àbd al-Rahman told us: "I heard Yahya Ibn Maìn say: 'Àbbad Ibn Suhayb is more reliablethan Abu Àsim al-Nabil.'" Abu Ishaq al-Sa`di said: "Àbbad Ibn Suhayb exaggerated in his innovation and

disputed for his falsehoods." [10]

Similar statements are made by Ibn Hajar in his Lisan al-Mizan .[11] The bottomline here is that Àbbad IbnSuhayb has been abandoned and his reports are rejected. The terms used to describe Àbbad Ibn Suhayb arethe most severe possible [ matruk al-hadith ]. It is not correct to describe his narrations as 'weak', which is anunderstatement. Rather, his narrations are fabricated, pure and simple. He has reached the lowest levels of

Jarh in the sciences dealing with al-Jarh wa 'l-Ta`dil ("The disparaging and declaring trustworthy") of thenarrators.

It is also clear that Ibn Abi Dawud wrote the hadith from Àbbad Ibn Suhayb even though the hadithscholars before and after Ibn Abi Dawud have considered the hadith from Àbbad Ibn Suhayb to berejected. It is not that the Orientalists and the missionaries are unaware of this fact. Jeffery, whose book

Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices is often used by the Christianmissionaries for polemical purposes to attack the Qur'an, clearly says:

Much of the material given by Ibn Abi Dawud regarding the history of the text of the Qur'an, thoughextremely unorthodox, yet agrees so closely with the conclusions one had reached from quite otherdirections that one feels confident in making use of it, however weak orthodoxy may consider its isnads to

be. [12]

Jeffery gives no reasons for is new found confidence. Commenting on Jeffery's attainment of "confidence"from "quite other directions" Yasir Qadhi says:

This clear double standard on Jeffery's part is not suprising; whenever an Orientalist finds someinformation that he feels can be used to discredit Islam and cast doubts on it, no matter what the


7 1/8/2012 7


9/17

context, authenticity or actual implications of the text may be.... Therefore the reason that thesenarrations are authentic, according to Jeffery, is because they agree with preconceived conclusions that

were arrived from 'quite other directions'; unnamed and unknown directions, it should be pointed out! [13]

In the absence of Jeffery's unknown and unnamed directions for his confidence in the material of Ibn AbiDawud, we go for something that is known, that is, the rejection of the hadith from Àbbad Ibn Suhayb. Thecase on the issue of the changes made by al-Hajjaj in Ùthman's mushaf can be considered null and void. Itis worth reminding that there exists no parallel reports similar to the one discussed in order to authenticatethe isnad and matn .

4. Hadith Criticism Of The Report: The Study of Matn

This report does not provide any clue of the nature of alleged changes that were made by al-Hajjaj inÙthman's mushaf . An in-depth study shows that they are the differences in the Qira'at . Dr. Ùmar IbnIbrahim Radwan did research on the issue alleged changes that al-Hajjaj made for his Ph.D thesis at theUniversity of Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud. His thesis was published as a book from Riyadh in two volumes.The book is called Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd ("TheViews Of The Orientalists About The Holy Qur'an & Its Interpretation: Study and Criticism ").

After quoting the report of Ibn Abi Dawud, Dr. Radwan mentions in the footnotes about the Qiraa'aat which the changes are associated with.

al-Baqarah (2:259) lam yatasanna w anzur without ha to lam yatasannah with ha . [14]

Comments: Both readings are among The Seven as it is mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in Hujjat al -Qira'at ,page 142/143, where he says that Hamzah and al-Kisa'i read lam yatasanna without the le tter ha in wasl[i.e., in case they didn't stop at the word yatasanna while reading] and the five other readings read

yatasannah keeping the ha even when they didn't stop. [15]

and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shariàtan wa minhajan was changed to shiràtan wa minhajan. [16]

Comments: al-Nakh'i and Ibn Waththab read with a fathah on the letter shin [i.e sharàtan ] and the

whole community of readers read shiràtan and I found nobody mentioning shariàtan . [17]

and in Yunus (10:22) huw al-ladhi yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum [18]

Comments: Both readings are among The Seven. They were mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in his book Hujjatal-Qira'at , page 329, where he says that Ibn Àmir read yunash-shirukum and the other readers read

yusay-yirukum . [19]

and in Yusuf (12:45) ana-atikum b ita'w ilihi was changed to ana ona bbio'kum bita'w ilihi [20]

Comments: al-Hasan read ana-atikum with a long hamzah having a fathah followed by the letter tahaving a kasrah and a silent ya . And in wasl [i.e., when not stopping on the word] , Nafi` and Abu Ja`farread ana onabbio'kum as it is mentioned by Ahmad Àbdul Ghani al-Dumyati in his book Ith a fu Fudal a '

ilbashar Fil Qiraa'aat Ilarba'a 'Ashar , page 265. [21]


7 1/8/2012 7


10/17

and in Mu'minun (23:85-89) sayaquluna lillah....lillah....lillah he made the two last occurrances

allah....allah [22]

Comments: All these readings are among The Seven as mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in Hujjat a l-Qira'at ,page 490, where he says that Abu 'Amir read allah...allah with an alif and the others read lillah...lillah and

all readings agreed on the first occurrence [i.e., lillah ] . [23]

and in as-Shuàra in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhrajina and in the story of Lut (26:167)it was minal marjumina . It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjumina and in the story of Lut

to minal mukhrajina [24]

Comment: I didn't find anybody who mentioned what the author has said. [25]

and in az-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamna baynahum ma` ishahum and he changed it to

maìshatahum . [26]

Comments: The reading of the community [jumhoor] of readers is maìshatahum in singular. Al-'Amash

and Àbdullah and Ibn Àbbas and Sufyan read maìshahum in plural as mentioned by Abu Hayyan inAl-Bahr al-Muhit , VIII - page 13. [27]

and in al-ladhina kafaru (47:15) min maìnn ghayr i yasin was changed to min maìnn ghayri asin . [28]

Comments: The Seven except Ibn Kathir read ghayri asin with a madd [a long vowel] , as for the readingyasinin it is shadhdh and was mentioned by Abu Hayyan who reported it using the words it was said that.... Refer to Hujjat al-Qira'at in page 667 by Ibn Zanjalah and the interpretation of Al-Bahr al-Muhit , VIII -

page 79. [29]

and in al-Hadid (57:7) he changed fal-ladhina amanu minkum w at-taqaw lahum 'ajrun kabir to minkum

wa anfaqu. [30]

Comment: I could not find the one who mentioned this reading. [31]

and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) w a ma huw a àlal-ghaybi bidhanin to bidanin . [32]

Comment: Ibn Kathir and Abu Àmr and al-Kisa'i and Rees and Ibn Mahran from Rawh read with the letterdha and the others read with the letter dad , and so it is in all the Codices (the books). Refer to Al-Nashr

fil Qira'at il'ashr , II - page 398/399. [33]

Dr. Radwan went on to say:

These readings as I have just highlighted are among the correct ( Sahih ), Mutawatir and well establishedthat we can read in any form it has been drawn into and among them are ones I could not verify whichmake us doubt about their being attributed to al-Hajjaj, especially because he was not isolated from theUmmah. Much more, in his time, no Muslim would let him change or replace anything traced back to the

Prophet (P) whether it concerned Qur'an or hadith.


17 1/8/2012 7


11/17

All these arguments rebut the claims of the Orientalists. And the following points confirm the validity of my opinion:

Al-Hajjaj being loyal to Ùthman [or from his court] and since he wouldn't forgive those who let

Ùthman down on the day of al-Dar [or the house], how could he question Ùthman and his codex

and make changes in it.

The codex of Ùthman was spread everywhere and its copies in the time of Ùthman were

countless. How about their number in the Umayyads time? Undoubtedly, their number hasincreased. Moreover, al-Hajjaj was the mere governor of one county of the huge Islamic land.Supposing that he was able to change the copies of his county how could he reach the ones in theother districts while there were thousands of copies! Much more, history did not mentioncontradictions between the Codices of Iraq and the other Codices. It is well known that the GreatBook is saved in the chests of Muslims as much as it is saved in written form. If al-Hajjaj managed

to change the lines how could he reach what is inside the chests of thousands of Muslims?

It is known as well that the Abbassid dynasty was established on the ruins of the Umayyads and

that they changed many of the policies of Bani Umayyah in the administration of the lands. Theydidn't spare any effort in showing the negative aspects of Bani Umayyah and in getting close to thepeople by spreading justice and defending it. If the Abbassids had found any changes in the HolyBook, it would have been the greatest opportunity for them to show how misleading Bani Umayyah

were and, thus, give their own rule some additional legitimacy. [34]

These observation speak of themselves. Even if we assume that this incident is authentic, the question thatarises is: so what? Al-Hajjaj supposedly made changes in 11 places, and even these places are documentedto the last detail. Orientalists and missionaries, as usual, take some trivial piece of information (forgetting thefact that it is fabricated!) and make, not just a mountain, but an entire planet, out of an anthole.

Let us now move to the Christian polemical sources such the letter of Byzantine Emperor Leo III to ÙmarII and the apology of Àbd al-Masih al-Kindi on the claim that al-Hajjaj was responsible for present dayQur'anic text.

5. The Christian Polemical Sources: Letter Of Leo III & Àbd al-Masih al-Kindi

There is a persistent tradition in the eastern Christian churches, often referred to by oriental Christians evenin the present day, to the effect that early during the 8th century, there had been an exchange of letters onthe question of the respective merits of Christianity and Islam, between the Ummayad Caliph Ùmar II andthe Byzantine Emperor Leo III. In the letter to Ùmar II, the Byzantine Emperor Leo III writes:

In brief you admit that we say that it [i.e., the Qur'an] was written by God, and brought down from the

heavens, as you pretend for your furqan , although we know that it was Ùmar, Abu Turab and Salman thePersian, who composed that, even though the rumour has got around among you that God sent it down

from the heavens. [35]

This is a rather peculiar statement from Leo III, as Jeffery comments in the footnotes. By Abu Turab, Leo

III meant Àli, son-in-law of the Prophet (P) . Continuing the letter to Ùmar II, Leo III writes:

As for your (book), you have already given us examples of such falsifications, and one knows, amongothers, of a certain Hajjaj, named by you as the governer of Persia, who had men gathered up yourancient books, which he replaced by others composed by himself, according to his taste, and which hepropagated everywhere in your nation, because it was easier by far to undertake such a task among the


17 1/8/2012 7


12/17

people speaking a single language. from this destruction, nevertheless, there escaped a few works of Abu

Turab, for Hajjaj could not make them disappear completely. [36]

Commenting on the issue, Jeffery states:

It would thus seem that some revision of the text, as well as clarification by division and pointing, wasundertaken by al-Hajjaj, and that this was known to the Christians of that day, and naturally exagerrated

by them for polemical purposes. [37]

It becomes quite obvious as to whether the document between `Umar II and Leo III is authentic. Jefferysays:

The question remains as to the genuineness of this correspondence, and that is a matter for the

historians to argue on the basis of the material itself. [38]

Now that the authenticity of this document has fallen on the grounds of suspicion, we would like to push thequestion even further and consider the ramifications. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook in their book,

Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World , used the aforementioned Christian polemic to reconstruct

Islamic history before even verifying the facts.Now both Christian and Muslim sources attribute some kind of role to Hajjaj in the history of Muslimscripture. In the account attributed to Leo by Levond, Hajjaj is said to have collected and destroyed the

old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others composed according to his own tastes. [39]

John Wansbrough, reviewing Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World , makes a mockery of the poorscholarship of Crone and Cook and says:

The material is upon occasion misleadingly presented, e.g., Ephrem certainly did not prophesy an exodusof Hagarenes from the desert, nor did Levond report Leo's description of Hajjaj destroying old Hagarene

writings .[40]

In other words, the account attributed to Leo by Levond (or Ghevond) is a forgery that was constructed toscandalize the question of al-Hajjaj by some later Christian writer. This possibility was also echoed by NealRobinson in his book, Discovering The Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach To a Veiled Text , where hestates:

The letter ascribed to Pope Leo may simply be a convenient literary device used by a Christian polemicistliving at a later date. Even if it is authentic, and the allegations which it contains have some substance,the activity of Hajjaj may have been limited to destroying the sectarian writings, and early codices of the

Qur'an which preserved the surahs in a different order. [41]

Now that the issue of Leo has been closed, let us now move over to the other Christian polemic associatedwith al-Hajjaj; the apology attributed to `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi. The composition of the apology has seensome serious disagreement among the Western scholars. The Encyclopaedia Of Islam says:

Taking as evidence the historical data supplied by the text, mention of caliph al-Ma'mun (198-218/813-33),of the sack of Mecca by Abu 'l-Saraya (199/815) and the revolt of Babak al-Khurrami (204/819), W. Muirbelieves that the date of the composition of the letter can be fixed at 215/830. But L. Massignon believesthe composition to be later than the year 300/912, seeing that the author borrowed from al-Tabari (d.310/923) his criticism of an opinion of the Hanbali al-Barbahari (d. 329/940). Similarly, observing aparallelism between certain criticisms contained in the letter and in the work of a Muslim heretic Ibn


17 1/8/2012 7


13/17

al-Rawandi (d. 298/910), P. Kraus concludes that the Christian author borrowed these criticisms from the

latter and therefore the letter can only have been composed at the beginning of the 4th/10th century. [42]

It appears that the most authentic view is that the letter was composed in the beginning of the 4th/10thcentury. The letter of al-Kindi played a very important role in the East as well as in the West in the polemicbetween Christians and Muslims. It was translated in Latin in 1141 by Peter of Toledo and revised by Peterof Poitiers. Its English translation was done by William Muir. [43] The claim of al-Kindi is that al-Hajjaj

gathered together every copy that he could lay hold of and caused to omit from the text a great manypassages. Among these were the verses revealed concerning the Bani Umayyah with names of certainpersons and concerning the Bani Àbbas also with certain names. Al-Hajjaj then sent six copies of hisversion of the Qur'an to Egypt, Syria, Makkah, Madinah, Kufah and Basra. After that he called in anddestroyed all the preceding copies, just as Ùthman had done before. Al-Kindi then says that he has drawnthis account from the Muslim authorities. [44]

To begin with, no such Muslim authorities mention what has been claimed by al-Kindi. Hence is it nothingbut a polemical exagerration. Jeffery says:

The Christian writer al-Kindi in his polemical work known as the Apology of al -Kindi , makes a controversialpoint out of the alterations he claimed that al-Hajjaj, as everyone knew, had made in the text of Qur'an,but this was regarded by scholars as just a polemical exagerration such as one might expect in a

controversial writing. [45]

Similarly, polemical nature of al-Kindi's apology rather than its factual basis is also echoed by Beesten et al .

It is difficult to assess the role of al-Hajjaj. We may ignore the arguments of the Christian Àbd al-Masihal-Kindi that al-Hajjaj was very much responsible for our text, as these have a polemical rather thanfactual basis. The account most widely found has him ordering Nasr bin Àsim to introduce the markingsto safeguard the protection of the text. This is a plausible reason for the innovation, and the story is

unchallenged, despite strong hostility of the sources towards al-Hajjaj. [46]

From a historical point of view, al-Kindi's claim is based upon conjecture rather than "Muslim authorities"and smacks of delirium. For al-Hajjaj was merely one of the generals in the Ummayad regime, with littleinfluence and almost no ability to do the Qur'an any harm. In fact, he was utterly incapable of effecting anychange in the most elementary laws of Islam, not to speak of the Qur'an, which is the foundation of Islamicfaith, and pillar of Islamic laws. One wonders how he could influence any change in the Qur'an after it hadgained currency in the vast Muslim empire. Not a single historian or commentator has chronicled thischange, the importance of which should not have escaped their notice. No contemporary Muslim everobjected to this, and even after his rule, the Muslims seem to have condoned this abominable fact.

Moreover, if it is all believed that he managed to withdraw all the copies of the Qur'an, and replacing it withhis new codex, how could he eradicate it from the hearts of great numbers of Muslims who had committed itto memory? Had there been anything in the Qur'an which was uncomplimentary to the Ummayads,Mu'awiyah would have been the first to see it omitted because, compared to al-Hajjaj, he was moreinfluential and powerful. Of course, if Mu'awiyah had done this, the companions of Àli would have arguedwith him, the way they did on many occasions, as recorded in the books of history, hadith and theology. Anexample would be of the battle of Siffin (AH 37), 27 years after the death of the Prophet (P) , and five yearsafter Ùthman's copies were distributed.

Mu'awiyah's troops fixed sheets from the Qur'an on their spears to interrupt the battle. However, nobody


17 1/8/2012 7


14/17

accused anyone else of using a 'partisan' version of the text, which would have made a splendid

accusation against the enemy. [47]

The pretence that the Qur'an has been tampered with has no substance whatsoever.

Al-Hajjaj was one of the most, if not the most, notorious figures in Islamic history and is well-known for hisbrutality against Ibn al-Zubayr as well as restive population of Iraq. It, therefore, comes as no surprise thatlots of spurious accounts are found regarding him, in both Islamic and Christian literature, which try to showhim as being even more evil than he was. The report in Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud and polemicsof Leo III and al-Kindi are obvious over-exagerrations and spurious.

6. Conclusions

To conclude the issue of al-Hajjaj and the changes he made in the Qur'an, it has been shown that the reportin Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud is false. This is because the reporter Àbbad Ibn Suhayb is the isnad has been declared abandoned in hadith and all his hadith are rejected. Analysis of matn of the hadith showsthat the alleged changes that were made related to the Qira'at that are mutawatir . Muslims have acceptedvarious Qira'at as authentic provided they satisfy certain conditions. Furthermore, the hadith in Kitabal-Masahif is only known to us through one chain. There exists no parallel chains to authenticate the matnor text of the report.

It is clear that there was no new recension after Ùthman united Muslims on the basis of single text. Muslimshave a complete agreement over it. Al-Hajjaj's role is rather well documented in the literature dealing withSciences of the Qur'an.

Summarizing the Christian sources: We see that the Christian sources of Leo III and Àbd al-Masih al-Kindihave a purely polemical purpose and exaggerate the events that took place during al-Hajjaj's time. Thesources lack factual basis and their historicity itself is doubtful. This view is solidified by modernscholarship. As pointed out earlier, how could al-Hajjaj, who was governor of Iraq, a small part of Muslimland, able to change the Qur'anic text completely. The complete change of Qur'an is not documented in theIslamic history at all. And above all how could he change what was commited in the memory of Muslims inthe vast Islamic empire.

And Allah knows best!

References

[1] For Kitab al-Masahif see Arthur Jeffery's, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an:The Old Codices , 1937, E. J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 117-118.

[2] A. Jeffery, The Qur'an As Scripture , 1952, Russell F. Moore Company Inc., New York, p. 99.

[3] A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant and G. R. Smith (Ed.), Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period , 1983, Cambridge University Press, p. 243.

[4] S. Masood, The Bible And The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity , 2001, OM Publishing: Carlisle, p. 36.


17 1/8/2012 7


15/17

[5] M. M. Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature , 1992, American Trust Publications: Indianapolis, p.305; Also J. Robson, " Tradition: Investigation And Classification ", Muslim World , 1951, Volume XLI, pp.102-104; See also " Al-Djarh Wa'l Ta`dil ", Encyclopaedia Of Islam , New Edition, 1965, Volume II, p. 462for judging the reliability of a narrator.

[6] Abi Àbdullah Muhammad Ibn Ismaìl al-Bukhari, Kitab Duàfa al-Saghir , 1976 [1396 AH], Daral-Wa`y: Halab, p. 76.

[7] Abi Àbd al-Rahman Ahmed Ibn Shuàyb al-Nasa'i, Kitab al-Duàfa wa-l-Matrukin , 1976 [1396 AH],Dar al-Wa`y: Halab, p. 75.

[8] Abi Muhammad Àbd al-Rahman Ibn Abi Hatim Muhammad Ibn Idris Ibn al-Mundhir al-Tamimial-Hanzali al-Razi, Kitab al-Jarh wa-l-Ta`dil , 1941-53, Volume III, Matbaàt Majlis Da'irat al-Maàrif al-Ùthmaniyah: Hyderabad al-Dakkan, p. 81-82

[9] Muhammad Ibn Hibban Ibn Ahmad Abi Hatim al-Tamimi al-Busti, Kitab al-Majruhin Minal-Muhaddithin wa-l-Duàfa' wa-l-Matrukin , 1975 [1395], Volume II, Dar al-Wa`y: Halab, pp. 164-165.

[10] Abi Àbdallah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Ùthman al-Dhahabi ( d . 748 AH), Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal , 1963, Volume II, Isa al-Babi al-Halabi: Cairo, p. 367.

[11] Shihab al-Din Abi al-Fadl Ahmad Ibn Àli ibn Hajar al-Àsqalani, Kitab Lisan al-Mizan , 1911-13[1329-31], Volume III, Matbaàt Majlis Da'irat al-Maàrif: Hyderabad al-Dakkan, pp. 230-23.

[12] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices , Op Cit. , p. viii.

[13] Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction To The Sciences Of The Qur'aan , 1999, Al-HidaayahPublishing And Distribution: Birmingham (UK), pp. 386-387.

[14] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices , Op Cit., p. 117.

[15] Dr. Ùmar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: DirasahWa Naqd , Volume I, 1992, Dar al-Tibah: Riyadh, p. 430.

[16] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices , Op. Cit., p.117.

[17] Ùmar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd , Op. Cit., p. 430.





17 1/8/2012 7


16/17



[23] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa

Naqd , Op. Cit., p. 431.







[30] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices , Op. Cit., p.

118.




[34] Ibid., pp. 430-431.

[35] A. Jeffery, " Ghevond's Text Of The Correspondence Between `Umar II and Leo III ", 1944, Harvard Theological Review , p. 292.

[36] Ibid., p. 298.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid., pp. 330-331.


17 1/8/2012 7


17/17

[39] P. Crone & M. Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World , 1977, Cambridge UniversityPress, p. 18.

[40] J. Wansbrough, " Review of Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World ", Bulletin Of The SchoolOf Oriental And African Studies , 1978, Volume 41, p. 156.

[41] N. Robinson, Discovering The Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach To a Veiled Text , 1996, SCM

Press Ltd, p. 56.

[42] " Al-Kindi, `Abd al-Masih ", Encyclopaedia Of Islam , New Edition, 1986, Volume V, p. 120.

[43] W. Muir, The Apology Of Al-Kindy , 1882, London. Also published in Egypt in the "Nile MissionPress" whose chairman was Dr. S. M. Zwemer.

[44] Also see Alphonse Mingana's discussion on the apology of al-Kindi in " The Transmission Of TheQur'an ", Journal of The Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society , 1916, pp. 41-42.

[45] A. Jeffery, The Qur'an As Scripture , Op. Cit , p. 99.

[46] A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant and G. R. Smith (Ed.), Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period , Op. Cit , p. 243.

[47] Ahmad von Denffer, `Ulum al-Qur'an , 1994, The Islamic Foundation, p. 56.

Back To The Text Of The Qur'an


did al-hajjaj change the qu'ran

Documents