Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Did Al-Hajjaj Change The Qur'An
Did Al-Hajjaj Change The Qur'An
A Reply To Christian Polemic
M S M Saifullah
Assalamualaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
To start with, my sincere thanks are to brother Abd arRahmân Lomax for his
c
useful comments and drawing my attention to certain points that I missed on
the issue of alHajjâj. Thanks are also due to Mr. Nicholas, Asst. Librarian,
Center for African Studies, University of Cambridge, for drawing my attention
to modern scholarship on Islam.
For the sake of ease, the contents of this document are divided as follows:
• The Christian Source
• The Muslim Tradition: Importance of Oral Transmission Of The Qur'ân
• alHajjâj & His Influence In The Ummayad Regime
• alHajjâj & The State of Arabic Language
• Conclusions
Introduction
It has become a disgraceful practice amongst Christian missionaries to explore
the most immoral possibilities in their quest to spread misinformation about
the Qur'ân and Islam. The Internet captain of this juvenile movement, a one
Jochen Katz, has offered an example of this type of foul ethics in an article
posted on his website. The missionary has fantasized the following about al
Hajjâj bin Yûsuf:
he gave himself the liberty to change several words of
Caliph Uthman's Koran, which is an indication that he did
not believe that the Koran was verbally inspired or was
inscribed in a "tablet preserved".
Every missionary scandal is rooted in some source or another. The scandal
surrounding alHajjâj is apparently based on two different traditions, one
Christian and one Muslim. We would like to begin by examining the origins
of the Christian tradition and then address the problems surrounding the
missionary's interpretation of the Muslim tradition.
The Christian Source
There is a persistent tradition in the eastern Christian churches, often referred
to by oriental Christians even in the present day, to the effect that early during
the 8th century, there had been an exchange of letters on the question of the
respective merits of Christianity and Islam, between the Ummayad Caliph
c
Umar II and the Byzantine Emperor Leo III. The details of the letter can be
seen in an article the appeared in the Harvard Theological Review in 1944. In
the letter to Umar II, the Byzantine emperor Leo III writes:
c
In brief you admit that we say that it (i.e., the Qur'ân)
was written by God, and brought down from the heavens, as
you pretend for your furqan, although we know that it was
Umar, Abû Turâb and Salmân the Persian, who composed
c
that, even though the rumour has got around among you
that God sent it down from the heavens. [1]
This is a rather peculiar statement from Leo III, as Arthur Jeffery comments in
the footnotes. By Abû Turâb, Leo III meant Alî , soninlaw of the Prophet .
c (R) (P)
Continuing the letter to Umar II, Leo III writes:
c
As for your (book), you have already given us examples of
such falsifications, and one knows, among others, of a
certain Hajjâj, named by you as the governer of Persia,
who had men gathered up your ancient books, which he
replaced by others composed by himself, according to his
taste, and which he propagated everywhere in your nation,
because it was easier by far to undertake such a task
among the people speaking a single language. from this
destruction, nevertheless, there escaped a few works of
Abû Turâb, for Hajjâj could not make them disappear
completely. [2]
Compare this with the boasting from the missionary's webpage:
he gave himself the liberty to change several words of
Caliph Uthman's Koran, which is an indication that he did
not believe that the Koran was verbally inspired or was
inscribed in a "tablet preserved".
The similarities are only all too striking. Regarding Leo's letter, Jeffery
comments:
This is a rather confused reference to the work of al
Hajjâj on the text of the Qur'ân. The orthodox Muslim
theory assumes that the text as canonized by Uthmân was c
the final canonization, but there is a reason to believe
that a recension of Uthmân's text was made by the
c
direction of alHajjâj, so that we only know of the text
of Uthmân in this later recension. This fact was
c
apparently well known to oriental Christian writers, for
alKindî in his apology, speaks of alHajjâj not leaving a
single codex that he did not gather up, and left out many
things, and of which he sent out copies of his new
recension, and directed his attention to destroying the
older codices. This statement of alKindî has always been
looked at askance as a piece of Christian polemic. [3]
Jeffery also discusses the addition of diacritical marks in the Qur'ânic text by
alHajjâj to make the reading more certain, as mentioned in the work of Ibn
Abî Dâwûd (to be discussed later, inshallah). Proceeding, Jeffery states:
It would thus seem that some revision of the text, as
well as clarification by division and pointing, was
undertaken by alHajjâj, and that this was known to the
Christians of that day, and naturally exagerrated by them
for polemical purposes. [4]
And further
As this work would have been done by alHajjâj during the
period of office under Caliph Abd alMâlik bin Marwan who
c
died in 86AH = 705AD, there is no difficulty in supposing
that Leo may have heard of it during his official life in
Syria. [5]
It becomes quite obvious as to whether the document between Umar II and
c
Leo III is authentic. The author's opinion on this issue is as follows:
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. [6]
Now that the authenticity of this document has fallen on the grounds of
suspicion, we would like to push the question even further and consider the
ramifications. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook in their book, Hagarism: The
Making Of The Islamic World, use 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 Hajjâj in the history of Muslim scripture. In
the account attributed to Leo by Levond, Hajjâj is said to
have collected and destroyed the old Hagarene writings and
replaced them with others composed according to his own
tastes. [7]
John Wansbrough, reviewing Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World,
simply makes a mockery of the poor scholarship of Crone and Cook:
The material is upon occasion misleadingly presented,
e.g., Ephrem certainly did not prophesy an exodus of
Hagarenes from the desert, nor did Levond report Leo's
description of Hajjâj destroying old Hagarene writings. [8]
In other words, the account attributed to Leo by Levond (or Ghevond) is a
forgery that was constructed to scandalize the question of alHajjâj by some
later Christian writer. This point is also echoed by Neal Robinson in his book,
Discovering The Qur'ân: A Contemporary Approach To a Veiled Text, where
he states:
The letter ascribed to Pope Leo may simply be a convenient
literary device used by a Christian polemicist living at
a later date. Even if it is authentic, and the
allegations which it contains have some substance, the
activity of Hajjâj may have been limited to destroying the
sectarian writings, and early codices of the Qur'ân which
preserved the surahs in a different order. [9]
Now that the issue of Leo has been closed, let us now move over to the other
Christian polemic associated with alHajjâj, the apology of Abd alMasîh al
c
Kindî. We have already noted above that the work of alKindî was of a
disputatious nature. Arthur Jeffery says:
The Christian writer alKindî in his polemical work known
as the Apology of alKindî, makes a controversial point
out of the alterations he claimed that alHajjâj, as
everyone knew, had made in the text of Qur'ân, but this
was regarded by scholars as just a polemical exagerration
such as one might expect in a controversial writing. [10]
Jeffery seems to miss the point that is mentioned in the book Kitâb alMasâhif
of Ibn Abî Dâwûd which he quotes to say:
When we come to examine the accounts of the activity of
alHajjâj in this matter, however, we discover to our own
surprise that the evidence points strongly to the fact
that his work was not confined to fixing more precisely
the text of the Qur'ân by a set of points showing how it
was to be read, but he seems to have made an entirely new
recension of the Qur'ân, having copies of his new text
sent to the great metropolitan centres and ordering the
destruction of earlier copies in existence there, much as
Uthmân had done earlier. Moreover, this new text
c
promulgated by alHajjâj seems to have undergone more or
less extensive alterations. [11]
It is quite surprising that the author Arthur Jeffery on one hand relies on
Kitâb alMasâhif of Ibn Abî Dâwûd and on the other hand always makes the
statements starting with "he seems" or "alHajjâj seems" to draw the attention
towards uncertainity of the extent to which alHajjâj was responsible for the
changes in the text. The nature of the changes which alHajjâj made can be
seen here.
Summarizing the Christian sources: We see that the Christian sources of Leo
III and Abd alMasîh alKindî have a purely polemical purpose and
c
exaggerate the events that took place during alHajjâj's time. The sources lack
factual bases and their historicity is doubtful. Furthermore, this view is
solidified by modern scholarship.
The Muslim Tradition: Importance Of Oral Transmission Of The
Qur'ân
It is important to focus on two aspects when we examine the transmission of
the Qur'ân. Till now the fundamental issue has only been with the written
text. The oral transmission seems to have taken the backseat and been
neglected by Arthur Jeffery. Were the changes made by alHajjâj confined to
the text of the Qur'ân or did it also affect the oral transmission? Unless the
latter possibility is proved by solid, historical evidence and not missionary
patchwork, it is baseless to assert that alHajjâj changed the Qur'ân. A change
should reflect in textual as well as oral transmission of the Qur'ân. Sadly, this
point has been overlooked by Arthur Jeffery in his work.
In this section, we will deal with the Muslim sources as well as some of the
nonMuslim sources. Let us first deal with the idea of introducing vowel signs
into the Qur'ân and the need for it. The Qur'ân holds a unique status in the
history of Arabic literature as being the first book ever in the Arabic language.
However, the oral recitation of the Qur'ân was and is considered the primary
mode of transmission, with the written form playing a secondary role.
Producing a written form of the Qur'ân without diacritical marks would have
been useful only to those who were masters of the language. The rapid
number of foreign converts to Islam, whose native language was not Arabic,
would have a very difficult time with an Arabic text that lacked these
diacritical marks. The same is quite true today for students of Arabic who
attempt to learn even modern, colloquial Arabic. These marks, called tashkîl
in Arabic, help to determine the correct pronunciation of the word, and thus,
avoid the mistakes. When the Islamic state expanded, more and more
Muslims of nonArab origin and also many ignorant Arabs began to study the
Qur'ân, and faulty pronunciation became widespread. It is important for the
missionaries to come to grips, as difficult as it may be, with the fact that faulty
pronunciation does not magically result in a "different version". This foolish
idea should be erased from the minds of the sincere. Abû 'Ubaydah narrated
about Abû alAswad alDu'alî:
Abû alAswad derived grammar from Alî Ibn Abî Tâlib, for
c
whom may there be peace, but he did not disclose to
anyone what he had learned from Alî, whose countenance
c
may Allah honour, until Ziyad appointed him for the
composition of something to serve as a guide to the
people, so that they could understand the book of Allah.
Abû alAswad asked to excused from this task, until one
time when he heard a reader recite, Allah is quit of the
idolators and of His Apostle (Qur'ân 9:3 should have been
read as Allah is quit of the idolators and so is His
Apostle). Then he said, "I never supposed that the
condition of the people would come to this!" So he
returned to Ziyad and said, "I will do what the emir has
ordered. Let there be sought for me a scribe who is
intelligent and obedient to what I say". They brought,
therefore, a scribe from the Abd alKays Tribe, but he
c
[Abû alAswad] was not satisfied with him. Then they came
with another one, about whom Abû al Abbas alMubarrad
c
said, "I regard him to be one of those [who are
intelligent]." So Abû alAswad said [to the new scribe],
"If you see that I open my mouth in pronouncing a letter,
place a mark above, on top of it. If I close my mouth
[making a u sound], place a mark in front of the letter,
and if I split [my lips] double the mark." So this was
the marking system of Abu alAswad. [12]
Ahmad von Denffor quotes the above story and explains the mistake that
occurred in the improper reading of the Qur'ân.
It is related that at the time of Du'alî someone from
Basra read the ayah 9:3 from the Qur'ân in a faulty way,
which changed the meaning completely:
from
that God and his Apostle dissolves obligations with the
pagans
to
that God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the
Apostle
This mistake occured wrongly reading rasulihi in place of
rasuluhu which could not be distinguished from written
text, because they were no signs or accents indicating
the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorized
the correct version he could out of ignorance commit the
mistake. [13]
In the footnotes, we read that:
Yaqut reports in his book that alHajjâj binYûsuf
himself once read ahabba in 9:24 wrongly as ahabbu. [14]
Hence, there arose a need to introduce tashkîl in order for the nonArabs to
read the Qur'ân in the correct manner. The oriental sources make use of this
Muslim tradition as well as other traditions and expand the argument to draw
supportive conclusions.
On this issue, Nadia Abbott writes:
When we come to consider the vowel signs, 1st century
manuscripts are of no aid, since no such signs appear in
any secular document of that date. However, Kur'ân
manuscripts credited to the period show a consistent vowel
system in which a single red dot above, below, or to the
side of a letter stood for the vowels A, I, and U
respectively, and two such dots indicated the tanwin. The
text of early Kur'âns, however, is never completely
voweled, the vowel sign for one or more of the letters of
a given word being used only where it was essential for a
correct reading. The Arabic traditions place the
introduction of the system early in the Muslim era, in
fact crediting Alî with it. Whether Alî deserves the
c c
credit or not makes little difference for the date in
question, for the majority of the sources credit a
contemporary of Alî , Abû alAswad alDu'alî, with the
c
system. They tell how, having at first refused to
introduce the system at the request of Ziyad Ibn Abihi,
governor of Irak, he finally did so when he heard the
Kur'ân being wrongly recited. The system could not have
been widely spread or generally used, for we find Hajjâj
facing the same problem in Irak and ordering Nasr Ibn
Asim to safeguard the pronunciation of the Kur'ân; Nasr,
c
so the story goes, introduced the double dots for the
tanwin. even this did not estabish the general use of the
system, for again we find Yahya Ibn Ya'mar given credit
for it, which credit is likewise shared by Hasan al
Basri. Still these efforts and their results proved
insufficient, for again Khalîl Ibn Ahmad is credited with
introducing the hamzah and the shaddah, the raum and the
ishmam, as he is also credited with the vowel signs that
are still in use for A, I, and U. The last were originally
miniatures of the letters alif, y and w, respectively. [15]
In the book Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period, regarding
the introduction of dots and strokes in the Qur'ân, we read that:
Dots and strokes were introduced to mark readings, a
method apparently copied from the use in Syriac texts.
From the limited information we have, it seems that these
marking were used at first simply to indicate the
variants, with those parts of the texts that were not in
dispute being left unmarked. This practice was frowned
upon in many quarters as a dangerous innovation. However,
with the strong support of the governer of Iraq, the
famous alHajjâj binYûsuf, it was developed into a
consistent system which could be applied to the whole
text. This allowed not only for letters of the same basic
form to be distinguished from one another, but also for
short vowels to be added. In addition the use of weak
letters to mark long vowels became more systematic, and
the marking of hamz was introduced. [16]
Going further:
It is difficult to assess the role of alHajjâj. We may
ignore the arguments of the Christian Abd alMasîh al c
Kindî that alHajjâj was very much responsible for our
text, as these have a polemical rather than factual
basis. The account most widely found has him ordering
Nasr bin Asim to introduce the markings to safeguard the
c
protection of the text. This is a plausible reason for
the innovation, and the story is unchallenged, despite
strong hostility of the sources towards alHajjâj. [17]
If anything, the role of alHajjaj is therefore a supportive one that strove to
maintain the authenticity of the Qur'ân in recitation. Now we have established
following facts:
o The Christian polemics of Abd alMasîh alKindî and Leo III
c
have no factual basis and even if they have any factual basis it is
all exaggerated view of what alHajjâj did.
o The need for tashkil or vowel signs arose because of the wrong
readings by nonArabs and ignorant Arabs. AlHajjâj played an
important role in introducing these signs.
Our aim now is to establish the exact role of alHajjâj and what he did after
the Uthmanic collection. Ahmad von Denffer writes:
c
According to Ibn Abî Dâwûd eleven changes were made under
alHajjâj. These are again according to Ibn Abî Dâwûd,
mistakes which were made in the preparation of Uthmân's c
copy. [18]
A further explanation of the changes that alHajjâj made is dealt with in the
book Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period.
However, this seems to be only a partial explanation of
what happened. On the other hand we have the tradition in
Ibn AbiDa'ud that alHajjâj was responsible for eleven
changes in the consonantal text. If this is so, he is
responsible for a minor recension at least. Against this
we must set the evidence of early copies of the Qur'ân
that have survived. These show that for some considerable
amount of time the new system was used sparingly and
mainly in connection with the variants. [19]
There is definitely a problem with the sentence
If this is so, he is responsible for a minor recension at
least.
The eleven changes which alHajjâj made was in the copy of Uthmân not in
c
all the copies around the Muslim world. It is not clear whether these are the
mistakes of the scribes or preference of one Qirâ'a over the other. It seems that
the changes involved a combination of correction of the errors of the scribes as
well as preference of one Qirâ'a over the other.
But then what happened to the oral transmission? Were there any changes in
that part of the transmission when alHajjâj corrected the Qur'ânic texts of
Uthmân? There is no such historical evidence to show if that sort of an event
c
happened.
The tradition of oral transmission in Arabia is well know and does not need to
be overemphasized. Professor Zwettler referring to the transmission of
[20]
Arabic poetry, states:
The poetry of Arabs, in the ages which preceded the rise
of Islamism, was perpetuated by oral tradition; for in
ancient times, when writing was not used or scarcely
used, memory was exercised and strengthened to a degree
now almost unknown. In those countries of Arabia where
Arabian poetry may be justly considered to have had its
origin or to have attained its earliest growth, there
lived reciters, or Râwis, as the Arabs called them, who
got by heart numerous songs of their poets, and recited
them, occasionally, in public assemblies and private
parties... This impression, in essence, has been shared
by a great majority of medieval and modern scholars who
have dealt to any degree with Arabic poetry. [21]
This aspect of oral transmission is equally applicable to the Qur'ân. Adrian
Brockett, in his article The Value Of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The
Textual History Of The Qur'ân, deals with various issues of the orally
transmitted traditions and the seven Qirâ'at in which the Qur'ân can be
recited. His conclusions regarding the oral side of Qur'ân's transmission is:
The transmission of the Qur'ân after the death of
Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic.
There was a single text, and nothing significant, not
even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor
could anything be put in. [22]
If this is the case with oral transmission of the Hafs and Warsh Qirâ'at then
can we not conclude that alHajjâj did not tamper with the text of the Qur'ân
as alleged by the Christian polemics (and consequently the Christian
missionaries)?
It should be mentioned what John Burton has argued in the conclusions of his
book The Collection Of The Qur'ân:
What we have today in our hands is the mushaf of
Muhammad. [23]
This conclusion has been an Orientalist consensus for quite some time, not a
recent phenomenon. The impassioned W Muir, in his book, The Life Of
Mohammad, states:
The recension of 'Uthman has been handed down to us
unaltered. so carefully, indeed, has it been preserved,
that there are no varaitions of importance, we might
almost say no variations at all, amongst the
innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the
vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered
factions, taking their rise in the murder of 'Uthman
himself within a quarter of a century from the death of
Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but
ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them.... There
is probably in the world no other work which has remained
twelve centuries with so pure a text. [24]
The merit of this conclusion rests on the venomous nature of the author
himself. Returning to the more recent scholarship and solidifying the issue:
Modern study of the Qur'ân has not in fact raised any
serious questions of its authenticity. The style varies,
but is almost unmistakable. So clearly that the whole
bear the stamp of uniformity that doubts of its
genuineness hardly arise. [25]
Bear in mind that these are not the pleas of Muslims but the testimonies of
zealous Orientalists. The conclusion is virtually unanimous: the transmission
of the Qur'ân has remained firm from the beginning. Historically speaking,
there is no evidence for a sudden change in the oral transmission when al
Hajjâj corrected the Uthmanic copy either.
c
This leads us to the conclusion that alHajjâj did not tamper with the text of
the Qur'ân in the manner that the Christian missionaries would like to
fantasize. Rather he made corrections to the errors which the scribes made in
the Uthmanic text and introduced the diacritical marks to facilitate a correct
c
reading of the text.
AlHajjâj & His Influence In The Ummayad Regime
No attempt at modifying the Qur'ân is known to have occurred after the era of
the four Caliphs, except for a report that alHajjâj had omitted many verses
from the Qur'ân, dealing disparagingly with the rule of the Ummayads, and
that he had also added to it some verses, that were not originally present.
Then he was alleged to have prepared a new codex for distribution in Egypt,
Syria, Mecca, Medina, Basra and Kufah. Thus, it is presumed that the present
Qur'ân is the one prepared by alHajjâj, who methodically destroyed all the
previous copies, allowing not a single one to remain. This briefly characterizes
the pubescent fantasy adopted by Christian missionaries.
From a historical point of view, this claim is based upon conjecture and
smacks of delirium. For alHajjâj was merely one of the generals in the
Ummayad regime, with little influence and almost no ability to do the Qur'ân
any harm. In fact, he was utterly incapable of effecting any change in the most
elementary laws of Islam, not to speak of the Qur'ân, which is the foundation
of Islamic faith, and pillar of Islamic laws. One wonders how he could
influence any change in the Qur'ân after it had gained currency in the vast
Muslim empire. Not a single historian or commentator has chronicled this
change, the importance of which should not have escaped their notice. No
contemporary Muslim ever objected 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'ân, and
replacing it with his new codex, how could he eradicate it from the hearts of
great numbers of Muslims who had committed it to memory? Had there been
anything in the Qur'ân which was uncomplimentary to the Ummayads,
Mu'âwiyah would have been the first to see it omitted because, compared to
alHajjâj, he was more influential and powerful. Of course, if Mu'âwiyah had
done this, the companions of Alî would have argued with him, the way they
c
did on many occasions, as recorded in the books of history, hadîth and
theology. An example would be of the battle of Siffîn (AH 37), 27 years after
the death of the Prophet , and five years after Uthmân's copies were
(P) c
distributed.
Mu'âwiyah's troops fixed sheets from the Qur'ân on their
spears to interrupt the battle. However, nobody accused
anyone else of using a 'partisan' version of the text,
which would have made a splendid accusation against the
enemy. [26]
The pretence that the Qur'ân has been tampered with has no substance
whatsoever.
AlHajjâj & The State of Arabic Language
Interestingly enough the line of attack against the Qur'ân is not yet exhausted.
We have browsed through various references concerning the use of these
Christian polemics by modern Orientalists. One such reference is from the
Journal of The Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society, regarding The
Transmission Of The Qur'ân. Due to the substantial length of the article, we
will simply quote the conclusions of the author, Alphonse Mingana, whose
focus is the "rudimentary" state of the Arabic language during the time of the
Prophet . He says:
(P)
If all the signs do not mislead us, very few oracular
sentences, if any, were written in the time of the
Prophet. The kind of life he led, and the rudimentary
character of reading and writing in that part of the
world in which he appeared, are sufficient witnesses in
favour of this view. Our ignorance of the Arabic language
in that early period of its evolution is such that we can
not even know with certainity whether it had any writings
of its own in Maccah or Madinah. If any writing existed
in these two localities, it must have been something very
similar to the Estrangelo or the Hebraic characters. [27]
The author also claims that Arabs learnt the art of writing from Jews and
Christians. He also claims that only during the time of Abd alMâlik and al
[28] c
Hajjâj (using the alKindî polemic) the Qur'ân was brought into the shape that
we have today.
As we are naturally inclined to examine the genuine condition of the Arabic
language during the advent of the Qur'ân, we will investigate the sources
themselves. Nabia Abbott answers the above allegations of Mingana in her
book:
The condition of Arabic writing in Muhammad's time is
indicated by perf no. 558 (our plates ivv), an Arabic
papyrus of the reign of Umar dated AH 22 and written in a
c
fairly well developed manuscript hand in the distant
province of Egypt, where Greek and Coptic were the
written languages in general use. If written Arabic was
so primitive and rare in its own homeland at the time of
Muhammad's death, how do we account for its practical use
in egypt only a short dozen years after that event? Again
to grant the incomplete development of orthography would
give us reason to suspect only the orthographic accuracy
of early Qur'ânic editions but not the possibility of
their existence. In this connection it is interesting to
note that nowhere in the traditions of the earliest
transmission of the Qur'ân is there any hint of serious
orthographic or vowel difficulties; rather it is the
differences in the Arabic tribal dialects and differences
arising out of foreigner's use of Arabic that seem to
demand attention. the foregoing considerations lead one
to believe that, if we allow for such common mistakes as
writers and copyists are liable to make, the Arabic
writers of Muhammad's time and of the time of early
Caliphs were able scribes capable of producing an
acceptable edition of a written Qur'ân despite the lack
of all the improvements of modern written Arabic. [29]
Thus, our point has been proven. Considering the possibility that missionary
zealots might insidiously attempt to transform this point into another piece of
sensationalist controversy, we would rather meet them ahead of time with the
answer.
Another interesting point raised by Nadia Abbott is that there was no mention
of the Qur'ân in the writings of the contemporary Christian writers. About the
ignorance of Christian writers in early Islam she says:
Why should we expect writers whom their own testimony
proves to have been so incapable of keeping up with the
march of events all around them that they even failed to
realize that a new religious idea, monotheism, was taking
hold of their Arab neighbours and masters why should we
expect such men to be so wide awake and so well informed
as positively to know of a Muslim book of which, at the
best, but a few copies were in existence and those few
carefully guarded from "Unbelievers"? even if we suppose
that some of them did know what was going on, their
interests were largely limited to their congregations and
to Christian heresy that the chances are as good,
particularly in early Islamic times, for their not
mentioning the Qur'ân as for their mentioning it;
therefore their failure to mention the Qur'ân in their
writings must be in general viewed as inconclusive,
circumstantial evidence. [30]
Even the most elementary study of this period of history will attest to the
powerful veracity behind this fact.
Conclusions
In this study we have dealt with the issues surrounding alHajjâj and
Christian polemics. It has been demonstrated that the letter of the Christian
Emperor Leo III are, in all likelihood, latter day forgeries by Christian zealots.
As far as alKindî's writings are concerned, one can safely say that they lack
factual evidence and follow the Christian missionary tradition of attacking the
Qur'ân.
The Islamic sources, on the other hand, are pretty clear about the role of al
Hajjâj. He was responsible for eleven changes in the copy of Uthmân and
c
introducing diacritical marks in the Qur'ân. Finally, let it be understood that
modifying the written script is not the same as modifying the oral recitation,
which is the true form of the Qur'ân. This does not amount to a tampering of
the Qur'ân, to the dismay of Christian missionaries.
And Allah knows the best!
References
[1] Arthur Jeffery, Ghevond's Text Of The Correspondence Between Umar II
c
and Leo III, 1944, Harvard Theological Review, pp. 292.
[2] Ibid., pp. 298.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., pp. 330331.
[7] P Crone & M Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 18.
[8] John Wansbrough, Review of Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic
World, P Crone & M Cook, Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African
Studies, 1978, Volume 41, pp. 156.
[9] Neal Robinson, Discovering The Qur'ân: A Contemporary Approach To a
Veiled Text, 1996, SCM Press Ltd, pp. 56.
[10] Arthur Jeffery, The Qur'ân As Scripture, 1952, Russell F Moore Company
Inc., New York, pp. 99.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Bayard Dodge (Editor and Translator), The Fihrist of alNadim, 1970,
Columbia University Press, pp. 8788.
[13] Ahmad von Denffer, Ulûm alQur'ân, 1994, The Islamic Foundation, pp.
c
58.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Nabia Abbott, The Rise of The North Arabic Script & Its Kur'ânic
Development, 1939, Nabia Abbott, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
pp. 39.
[16] 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, pp. 243.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ahmad von Denffer, Ulûm alQur'ân, Op. Cit., pp. 56.
c
[19] 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., pp. 243.
[20] See R A Nicholson's, Literary History Of The Arabs, 1930, Cambridge
University Press & H A R Gibb's Arabic Literature, 1963, Oxford At Clarendon
Press.
[21] Michael Zwettler, The Oral Tradition Of Classical Arabic Poetry: Its
Character & Implications, 1978, Ohio State University Press (Columbus), pp.
14.
[22] Andrew Rippin (Ed.), Approaches Of The History Of Interpretation Of
The Qur'ân, 1988, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 44.
[23] John Burton, The Collection Of The Qur'ân, 1979, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 239240.
[24] W Muir, The Life Of Mohammad, 1912, Edinburgh, John Grant, pp. xxii
xxiii.
[25] W M Watt & R Bell, Introduction To The Qur'ân, 1994, Edinburgh at
University Press, pp. 51.
[26] Ahmad von Denffer, Ulûm alQur'ân, Op. Cit., pp. 56.
c
[27] Alphonse Mingana, The Transmission Of The Qur'ân, 1916, Journal of The
Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society, pp. 45.
[28] Ibid., pp. 46.
[29] Nabia Abbott, The Rise of The North Arabic Script & Its Kur'ânic
Development, 1939, Nabia Abbott, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
pp. 48.
[30] Ibid.