Introduction

Since we are living in the modern age, we are privileged to read, study and believe various books; but recently I have heard and read about a few Muslim scholars who through their

messages and books claim that only the Quran is true whereas the Bible is corrupted and polluted. However, the fact is that the Bible is the best seller and most printed book in the world; millions of people all over the world are blessed by

reading it. The copies of the original manuscripts of the Bible are still preserved and from those texts we have hundreds of translations in various languages in the world; those translations are unadultered and perfect. Only the Bible can give peace, solace, redemption and hope to mankind. On the other hand, the Quran was translated in limitation. Muslim scholars did not have unanimous opinion on the compilation of the Quran. Moreover, all the copies of the Quran were

destroyed by Usman except one. Now, on the forthcoming pages, we are going to study about the compilation and the credibility of the Quran.

Jalaludeen, an Islamic poet who lived in the 13th century A.D. told an interesting story about an elephant. Somebody brought an elephant to Arabia and chained it in a dark room. Many people reached there to see the elephant. Since the room was filled with darkness, none of them was able to see the animal. So they decided to recognise it by their finger handling. They, one by one, went near to the monster. One of them, who touched the tusk, said that it was like a cylinder. It was a fan for the other man who handled the ear. When the third man who touched the body felt it as a wall; the fourth man considered it as the stump of a tree after holding its leg. As far as the fifth person was concerned, the elephant was a snake, when he touched the tail. As a matter of fact, none of them could comprehend the elephant fully, though every one of them had a partial apprehension of the animal. Similarly, the Muslim friends who allege the Bible was corrupted and adultered, in fact, know little of the reality. So, we request you to read the Bible carefully in order to grasp the truth.

The aim of this booklet is to show the real position of the Quran as well as to correct the wrong allegations against the Bible, so that the reader may get to a proper conclusion. Quran says: "If thou art in doubt concerning that which we revealed unto thee, then question those who read the scriptures before thee (Those who read the scriptures before are the Jews the Christians(Sura. 10.95). Now the readers have the choice to select the credible one-the Bible or the Quran. Jesus Christ says: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John. 8:32).

Mentality of Modern Muslims Concerning the Quran.

Muslim everywhere in the world believe that the Quran is uniform and perfect. There are no diverse translations and documents. There is but one Quran and every Muslim uses the identical text, given word for word by Gabriel to Muhammed who, in turn, recited it to his companions for memorization. Quran says:

"Lo ! we, even we, revealed the reminder, and lo ! we verily are it's guardian" (Sura.15:9). This is how they say that the Quran is the Word of God.

Muslim writers boldly declares that, "All the great religions of the world have their sacred books but it is the proud claim of Islam that the Quran is the only sacred book to have survived absolutely unchanged since it was first revealed and written down fourteen hundred years ago" (Khalifa, The Sublime Quran and Orientalism, p.3).

"The purity of the Quran text is and will forever remain the greatest miracle of all history" (Haykal, The Life of Muhammed, p. xcvi).

"It is a truly miraculous fact that the text of the Quran has been preserved absolutely pure and entire, down to the last vowel point" (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for modern Man, p. 89).

It is a reality that the verses of the Quran are preserved as the Quran was compiled in the early period of Islam. Even Christian Scholars are inclined to accept this fact.

"There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text" (Muir, The Life of Muhamed, p.xxi).

However, as we study the early complation of the Quran, we will realise that the evidence does not agree with their assumption. Zafrulla Khan even went to the extent in saying that the vowels of the Quran are still preserved today without any alteration. But the history of the Quran cleary states that the consonants and vowels were used in Arabic only two decade after the death of Muhammed. There were only seventeen consonants in Kufic and other script languages and they were not used in connection with consonants either (But there are 29 consonents in Arabi language). Humanly preservation of the Quran cannot be taken for granted as the miracle of God.

The claim that the verses of the Quran were preserved in the memory of the ones who recited them is also not justifiable; for man's endeavour, no matter how much careful it might be, cannot be considered it as the evidence for the miracle of God. If we analyse the history of the Quran, we will come to the conclusion that many modifications had been done on the Quran. The documents, as they claim to be preserved, cannot be acceptable. We will definitely reach the following conclusion, if we study the evidence.

It may be assumed that the Quran in its present form contains the greatest part of the revelations which actually occurred; on the other hand, one cannot support the claim that it includes all of the revelations. (Gatje, The Quran and its Exegesis, p.23).

The so called assumption of the Muslims concerning the Quran does not derive from the analytical study of the historical facts; on the other hand, it is merely a pre-conceived notion. Quran never had to confront any severe criticism, as the Bible had to undergo for the past few centuries. The present uniform text of the Quran is taken for granted by Muslims as a sign of its Divine preservation against the differences that are found in the various translations of the Bible. But any one who studies the Quran critically will come to the conclusion as we will come across shortly; for the outcome of the critical study of the Quran will definitely be consistent with that we are going to study.

Is there any serious textual criticism of the Islamic Scripture? How far have Muslims gone in taking the Quran in proper terms of historical analysis? Are they not impossibly fundamentalist in their attitudes? When will the break come? (Cragg, The Mind of the Quran. p.183).

As the early Muslims began to mingle themselves with the Christians, they realised that the doctrines of the Bible and the teachings of the Quran contradicted each other. Since these teachings do not uphold the Quran, and that they are basically belonged to the Jews as well as the Christians, as it says, necessity is the mother of invention, the Muslims then began to allege that the Bible was corrupted and altered; they continue to hold the same view even today also. However, we will realise "the history of the Quran is very similar to that of the Bible," provided we study the origin of the Quran authentically.

The State of the Quran during the death period of Mohammed

The death of Mohammed was totally unexpected. Umar threatened to kill anyone who attempted to air any kind of allegation against this incident. What was the condition of the Quran in these state? The reference that we find in the Hadith concerning this incident is suspicious; however, every one would agree the fact that the Quran was compiled in it's final state only after the death of Mohammed. It is a reality that until the death of Mohammed, the revelation he received was neither compiled nor collected systematically. The present Quran had been compiled by those Muslim leaders who were elevated to the top position after the death of Mohammed. Most of the pronouncements of the prophet were already lost when they felt them to be collected. The other pronouncements were collected only partially.

The Western scholars who studied about the compilation of the Quran hold the same view. Jeffery, a formost scholar from the West, after studing this subject throughly, has given this same opinion too.

Nothing is more certain than that when the prophet died, there was no collected, arranged, collated body of revelations. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the text of the Quran. p.5)

As indicated early, the early Hadith are not vivid in these case; neverthless, we hope to reach a definite conclusion from them. Every one is expected to abide by the evidence. Some scholars are trying to set aside the traditional belief, so as to reach an appropriate conclusion. John

Burton goes with this group. In one of his books, he attempted to prove that Mohammed defined andcompiledtheQuranpriortohisdeath.

Nonetheless, he was forced to agree that his thesis was not consistent with regard to the evidence. In spite of this contradictory factors, they, at the same time, unanimously admit that the Quran was not compiled before the death of Muhammed. "The Muslim reports are not in fact in disagreement; they are in perfect agreement, for common to all of them is the constant and unvaring allegation that whoever may have been the first to collect the Quran text, it was certainly not the prophet to whom they had been revealed (Burton, The Collection of the Quran, p.160).

All the Hadith tell us that the Quran verses were being collected during the period of Abu Baker who became the Khalif for a brief periodafter the death of Mohammed. Wide spread resistance broke out all over Arabia against the elevation of Abubaker as the successor of Muhammed. So many Qurras were killed in the battle field at Yamama on the attempt to supress the agitation. This was the incident which inspired him to collect and preserve the verses of the Quran. One of the Hadith reports the following: "Narrated Zaid bin Thabit; Abu Baker as Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed......... Then Abu Baker said (to me); You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for the Quran and collect it (in one book). By Allah if they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Quran. Then I said to Abu Baker, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do? Abu Baker replied, "By Allah, it is a good project" (Sahih al Bukhari, vol. 6, p.477).

Zaid immediately responded to his plea and began to collect the verses of the Quran. Hadit, on the other hand, says that the Quran was compiled by the four companions of Muhammed during his period itself. Zaid was one of them also.

Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik, "Who collected the Quran at the time of the Prophet?" He replied, "Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid (Sahih al Bukhari, vol. 6, p.488).

Another early collector of Hadith adds that there was a fifth but that there was some dispute as to his identity. He is said to have been one Tamim al - Dari (Ibn Zaid, Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, vol. 2.p.457).

Now every one can easily understand the uncertainty prevailed over the compilation of the Quran.

What should we do then with the other two traditions of Bukhari which are in harmony with Ibn Zaid in assigning the collection of the Quran to the lifetime of the Prophet? (Mingana, "The Transmission of the Quran", The Muslim World. Vol.7.p.288).

Another tradition of Bukari tells us very clearly that all the important writtings of the Hadit acknowledge that the real collection of the Quran was completed only after the death of Mohammed. As pointed out early, this tradition has a wide acceptance, Zaid knew the Quran throughtly, however, his deep knowledge of the Quran was contradictory to the following statement: "So I started looking for the Quran and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Suratat-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari and I did not find it with anybody other than him (Sahih al- Bukhari, Vol.6.p.478).

It is very clear that Zaid had thoughtfully explored it, but the fact that only one person had the knowledge of it shows that no one knew the text completely (Sura:9:128-129). However, it was not to be found with any one who was considered as a Hafiz. Thereafter, we are told that the complete text was preserved by Abu Beker and after his death his successor Umar had kept it and after his death his daughter Hafsah detained it respectively.

The stone script and the palm leaf script which were used by Zaid for the compilation of a book, that is supposed to be free from all errors, is insufficient. Where is the proof to show that he had composed a complete manuscript on the basis of a partial evidence? If any one had known the text by heart, the labour of Zaid would have been vain. Actually, had any one of the Qurras intimated him of it so, it would have been better. Any how, the attempt of Zaid to collect the manuscripts of the Quran shows that they had been scattered in various places and the persons whom he sought for advice had only known a few manuscripts. In the ultimate analysis, this book was written neither by the command nor by the control of the Almighty.

The Compilation of the Quran by Usman

Tradition compels us to believe that the official Quran was compiled by Abu Baker; however; it was being retained as private property without being published or propogated by the two Kalifs who assumed office after the death of Mohammed, and afterwards, according to the tradition, it was kept under the pillows of Hafsa as a holy reminder.

Thus, if the death of so many Muslims at Al-Yamama en-dangered the preservation of the text, why did Abu Baker, after making his copy, practically conceal it, entrusting it to the guardianship of a woman? (Caetani "Utman and the Recension of the Quran" The Muslim World. Vol. 5.p.381).

We will find out an immediate answer to this question. But another factor which needs our particular attention is that, when the same copy of the Quran was brought from outside during theregime of the third Khalif Usman, they realised the fact that the Muslims in that area recited it in a different manner. We can comprehend it from the following citation.

Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to Usman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before. So Usman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you’. Hafsa sent it to Usman. Usman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Zaid bin Al-as, and Abdul-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Usman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Quran was revealed in their tongue". They did so, and when they had written many copies, Usman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Usman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts of whole copies, be burnt (Sahih al Bukhari Vol. 6.p.479).

This tradition testifies very clearly that the manuscripts of the Quran, either in fragments or wholly, were being used in the other conquered territories. The command of Usman to burn all the remaining manuscripts shows that serious differences of reading existed between the manuscripts of Hafsa and the other manuscripts.

The traditional account of what led to the next step in the fixing of the form of the Quran implies that serious differences of reading existed in the copies of the Quran current in the various districts (Watt Bell's, Introduction to the Quran, p.42).

It is definite that no other copy was equivalent to that which was collected for Zaid Abu Baker.. None of them was survived. This heinous act of Usman indicates that those differences were not confined to recitational variations, but there existed rigorous dissimilarity both in their narration and contents as well. Therefore, the Quran that has been handed over to us for centuries, is not the original one, but only a model. This copy of the Quran was finally recognised as the model text after all the other copies were renounced.

Attempts have been made to avoid this conclusion by claiming that all Utman did was to remove dialectal peculiarities that had crept in to the pronunciation of the Quran as it was recited, and have a standardized type of text written out in the pure dialect of the Quraish. This matter of Quraish dialect is indeed mentioned in the traditions referring to this recession, but to pretend that it was merely a matter of dialectal variations is to run counter to the whole purport of the accounts. The vast majority of dialectal variations would not have been represented in the written form at all, and so would not have necessitated a new text (Jeffery, The Quran as Scripture, p. 96).

Rather, his aim was to select from amid a welter of rival Quran texts, each claiming to be uniquely authentic record of what had been reveled to Muhammed, a single text to be officially promulgated as the ‘textus receptus’ of the Muslims. No deviation from this text would be hence forward tolerated, or indeed possible, for it is also reported that Utman required the destruction of all other recorded Quran texts (Burton, The Collection of the Quran, p. 138).

Indeed even the commission by Utman to Zaid and the other three redactors indicates that Hafsah's copy of the Quran had hardly been regarded as an infallible text per se. The direction given that the text should be standardised in the Quraysh dialect shows that the four men were given some liberty to revise Hafsah's manuscript where they considered this necessary to bring it into line with its original language. Indeed the reason for this is most informative: "This was because Zaid was a madinite while his colleagues were Quraish" (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 26). It is to be presumed that, as Zaid was the sole compiler of Hafsah's text, there were Medinese dialectal variants in his work which needed to be corrected by the other three. Furthermore the Hadith go on to inform us that even after this recension by the four scribes, Zaid recalled a verse which was lost.

Zaid bin Thabit added, ‘A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit al-Ansari’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6.p.479).

This verse is in Sura 33:23. So the present copy of the Quran cannot be considered to be free from error and complete without any omission or addition. As it says, the strength of a chain is equal to its weakest link, so even if the Quran was being rewritten without any error since the period of Utman, the first one is the remaining link. If that is found out now, upon its evidence the claim that the Quran was perfect during the period of Utman and Mohammed, has no validity.

Usman's commission decided what was to be included and what excluded; it fixed the number and order of the Suras, and the ‘out line’ of the consonantal text (that is, its shape when the dots distinguishing letters are omitted). (Whatt, Bell's Introduction to the Quran, p.44.)

Among the other texts destroyed were two by the well known and highly respected qurra Abdulla bin Mas'ud and Ubayy bin Ka'b, the latter in fact being known as sayyidul-qurra-the 'Master of the Readers’ It is said of his text:

We have no knowledge of when his Codex was made, but we do know that before the appearance of the Utmanic standard text his Codex had already come into vogue in Syria...... His Codex is definitely stated to have been among those destroyed by Usman (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran, p. 114.115)

We will have to discuss concerning the famous companions of Muhammed shortly. The records of their differences with the Utmanic text were preserved, though their manuscripts were destroyed.

Usman's text was intended to standardize the consonantal text, yet for long after Utman's time there is evidence that variant traditions as to the consonantal text survived among the learned, and we can gather a great mass of material as to the readings in the text of Ubai or Ibn Mas'ud (Jeffery, ‘Progress in the Study of the Quran Text." The Muslim World, Vol. 25,p.8).

Thus, we can conclude that the final text which Utman constrained to the Islamic world, was not equal to his predecessors texts; it was merely a collected portions of the manuscripts which were compiled by the companions of Mohammed and the other qurras. This fact explains the extraordinary preservation of the Quran since the compilation of the Quran under the patronship of Abu Baker till it was published during the period of Utman. It happened not because the text of Zaid was complete and the other copies were incomplete, but the fact is that the text of Zaid was one amoung the many texts.

Modern criticism is willing to accept the fact that Abu Baker had a collection of revelation material made for him and, may be, committed the making of it to Zaid bin Thabit. It is not willing to accept, however, the claim that this was an official recension of the text. (Jeffery, The Quran as Scripture, p. 93). That Abu Baker was one of those who collected revelation material was doubtless true. He may possibly have inherited material that the Prophet had stored away in preparation for the Kitab. That he ever made an official recension as the orthodox theory demands is exceedingly doubtful. His collection would have been a purely private affair, just as quite a number of other companions of the prophet had made personal collections as private affairs. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the The Text of the Quran, p. 6).

We got to say it again that they were all the different writtings of the Quran. According to the opinion of the modern Muslim writers, the differences that existed in the Quranic recitation in those days were only confined to the variations in consonantal pronunciation. That problem did not prolong to be serious one also. Only the written books were burnt. The variations in consonantal pronunciation did not reflect in writing, therefore, we can assume that the differences existed both on vowels and on verses.

The mass of variant readings that has survived to us from the Codices of Ubai and Ibn Mas'ud, shows that they were real textual variants and not mere dialectal peculiarities. (Jeffery, The Quran as Scripture p. 97).

Why didn't Utman convene an elaborative council comprising of all the Qurras inorder to prepare an accepted text by renewing the whole Quranic text? Why did he constrain the text of Zaid to the whole Muslim world as the unified text of the Quran? The environmental study of that period will give an appropriate answer to these questions. Utman was not a famous Kalif. He was antagonistic to the Islamic movement in the beginning. He was forced to surrender to Islam, as he found no other option when Mohammed conqured Mecca. He belonged to the tribe of Umays too. After the death of Mohammed, for the propogation of Islam, the close companions of Muhammed as well as the hightly influenced persons were elevated to the top positions. On account of this particular move, the renowned enemies of Mohammed such as Mu'awiya, Yazid and others had enjoyed control over the Kalifs.

This danger was noticed by the more loyal and religious followers of Mohammed, especially the qurra who had much influence in the empire, a class of men who had acquired, thanks to their being continually with the prophet, a fairly complete knowledge of the Quranic revelations and of all the customs and rules of life, culled from the reformer’ (Caetani, Utman and the Recension of the Quran’, The Muslim World, Vol.5, p.386).

Since the Quran is the final word for the life and conduct of the Muslims everywhere, these people began to influence the regions beyond the control of Utman at Medina. Such a great power was bestowed upon them because they taught the Quran authentically. It was a challenge and threat to Utman, nevertheless, the Quranic text which they compiled became the standard text in those regions.

The most important fact that Tradition has preserved in connection with these early Codices, however, is the fact that certain of them came to attain the position of metropolitan Codices. Thus we read that the people of Kufa came to regard the Codex of Ibn Mas'ud as in a sense their Recension of the Quran, the people of Basra the Codex of Abu Musa, the people of Damascus the Codex of one Miqdad b. al-Aswad, and the Syrians other than the folk of Damascus, the Codex of Ubai. (Jeffery, The Quran as Scripture. p. 94).

Now when we come to the accounts of Utman's recension, it quickly becomes clear that his work was no mere matter of removing dialectal peculiarities in reading, but was a necessary stroke of policy to establish a standard text for the whole empire. Apparently there were wide divergences between the collections that had been digested into Codices in the great Metropolitan centres of Madina, Mecca, Basra, Kufa and Damascus and for political reasons if for no other it was imperative to have one standard Codex accepted all over the empire. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran, p. 8).

Thus we find that the ulmate aim of Utman's decree, was not only to compile an integrated text, but to put an end to the increasing influenceof the Qurras in order to overcome their threat. As a matter of fact, the Khalif determined to set aside the scholarship of the Quras, so that, they might not exercise any authority in the religious affairs.

It is very significant that the Qurra were violently opposed to Utman because of this act, and there is evidence that for quite a while the Muslims in Kufa were divided into two factions, those who accepted the Utmanic text, and those who stood by Ibn Mas'ud, who had refused to give up his Codex to be burnt. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran, p. 8).

We are not therefore surprised to find that this high-handed political blow aroused the anger of the qurra and other more religious factions even more against the Kalif and that they succeeded in murdering him not long afterward.

We may well believe that the measure taken by the third Kalif of issuing an official edition and ordering all unofficial copies to be burned, was a political necessity. That this act brought about an insurrection wherein he was murdered is the most probable explanation of the first civil war of Islam. (Margoliouth, "Textual Variations of the Quran", The Muslim World, Vol. 15, p. 336).

It is most probable that this was the real reason for Utman's action and one which contributed to his assassination. The standardising of the Quran Text was purely incidental to his efforts to establish control over the Muslim empire and to neutralise the potential of a revolution headed by those whose influence was assured through their knowledge of the Quran.

Utman ordered the compilation of a single official text of the Quran, and the violent suppression, the destruction by fire of all other copies existing in the provinces. Such an act called for considerable political courage, for it was an open challenge to the whole class of the Readers and an effectual attempt to put an end to the monopoly of the sacred text that they claimed. (Gaetani, "Uthman and the Recension of the Quran" The Muslim World, Vol. 5.p.389).

It does not suit Islamic tradition to admit as much and it was certainly to its advantage to have a standard text universally accepted in the world of Islam. Later contacts with the Christian world made this eventuality all the more suitable to the Muslim cause. A single Quran text proved to be healthy foundation for an attack on the supposed variations and differences in the Christian scriptures. Actually, this supposed unity of the Quran itself shows its weakness. The manuscript of Abu Baker which was found along with the collection of the Kalif, was not used as a personal copy, but as an original text for official references. It can be considered as an attempt of the traditional believers to give an explanation that the compilation of the Quran was taken place during the period of Abu Baker. In fact, Utman had only copied from the text of Abu Baker. What Utman wanted was to get his official copy approved by the holy qurra, so that the texts of his enemies to be renounced as unofficial. However, the previous articles of the authoritative Quran were already popular among the common people

The Manuscript of abdullah Ibn Mas'ud

We need to give special attention to the manuscripts of Ibn Ma'sud. It is from Hadith that we gather information about it. He embraced Islam in its early stage and proclaimed the message of Mohammed at Macca publically, When he was asked to destroy his manuscripts in accordance with the text of Zaid, he said: " There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I Know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about Whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah's Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him ". (Sahih al-Bukhari., Vol.6.p.488)  

He was a close companion of Mohammed as well as renowned Quran Reader. We have already noticed that his manuscript was given official recognition at Kufa. Zaid sent a copy of his unified text to Kufa and commanded to burn all other copies. But Ibn Mas'ud refused to submit his manuscript. When Zaid was in the loins of an unbeliever Ibn Mas'ud was already a believer. So, his manuscript would have been given adequate priority.

Ibn would have definitly started collecting the verses of the Quran before Zaid had done, for he became a Muslim only after the Hijrah. Zaid Ibn Tabith was the first believer in Islam, according to Muhammed Khalifa in his book called, 'Sublime Quran and Orientalism `. He was appointed as a scribe of Mohammed as well. (p.36). It seems, he inculcated misunderstanding to Zaid Ibin Harithah, the adopted son of Mohammed. But the one who collected the manuscript of Abu Backer was from Madeena. More over, he embraced the Islam only some years after its origion. Above all, Ibin Mas'ud, according to Hadith, was an authority of the Quran; If not, at least he was a scholar and a champion of it.

Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, " That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet saying, 'Learn the Quran from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud-he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal, and Ubai bin Ka'b". ( Sahihul Bukhari Vol 5 p.96).

According to the tradition, Saheehul Muslim, also, it was Muhammed who deliberately mentioned his name first, which means he is the real authority of the Quran (Vol.4.p.1312). Zaid was not even mentioned in that list. Another tradition tells us that after Usman commissioned to recite the Quran in a unified pattern, Ibin Mas'ud delivered a sermon at Kufa, in which he declared that: "The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Quran. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (prophet) whom I love more than that of Zaid Ibin Thabit. By him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy Surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zaid Ibin Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth. (Ibin Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaquat al-Kabir, Vol.2. p. 444).

The transmitter of the tradition, Shaqiq Ibn Salamah, added: ‘Subsequently I sat in the circles of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and others but none contradicted his statement’ (op cit.). Another tradition from the same source says that when Abu Zabyan, an early convert to Islam, was asked which of the two readings of the Quran he preferred, that is, the reading of Zaid or that of Ibn Masu'd, he replied the latter, adding that whenever Gabriel revealed or recited the Quran to Muhammed during Ramadan each year, Ibn Mas'ud was the first to learn of it (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. Vol.2. p.441).

Therefore, on the basis of the above mentioned traditions, the text of Ibn Masud was generally approved with authority than that of the text of Zaid. Masud's text was the best among all the available texts of the Quran. Thus, there is no wonder his text was being preserved even rejecting the order of the Kalif. Major discrepancies also existed concerning the contents between the text of Zaid and the text of Masud. We shall discuss about two or three of them shortly. All these things vehemently point out that the manuscript of Zaid was not the true copy of the Quran that was handed over by Muhammed to his followers which was perfect, unabridged and free from all errors. Though common Muslims may be resented over this awareness, yet it will be gradually diminished, when they grasp the reality from the Hadith.

A few Muslim scholars claim that the discrepancies that are found on the contents between the text of Ibn Masud and of the othersare confined to mere marginal notes and explanations (So, Khalifa, The Sublime Quran and Orientalism. p. 49). In the same way, the differences were only restricted to vowels, therefore, they would not in any way affect the Quran, they assert. All the records that we have so far discussed, make it very clear that all those manuscripts contained very serious discrepancies; otherwise, Utman wouldn't have to command to burn all the unofficial manuscripts.

The arguments of the Modern Muslims are not based upon the substantial evidences; but what they attempt is to assert that the Quran cannot have any error.

If it is argued that all the evidences that we brought forth are not trust worthy, since they are all based upon the Hadith-such allegations were already raised earlier- we reply that, that nowhere else in the history of the Quran we can collect the facts how the Quran came in to existence. We have no other way to clear our doubts except the Hadith. Those who claim that the present state of the Quran itself is the clear testimony of its contents, must also verify who wrote it by collecting it from Muhammed; for its perfectness and completeness, they have to provide sufficient evidences and also to show upon which authority their claim is based.

As a matter of fact, inconsistancy on contents is the pecularity of the Quran. There cannot be found any uniform ideas in the Quran. Its chapters are not written according to the order of the incidents. Different chapters of the Quran deal with different subjects without any co-ordination and consistancy. If we can find a complete story in any of the Suras, as we find a complete story of Esther in the Bible, that testimony can be taken for granted for its uniqueness. So, none can claim its accuracy systematically.

The substance of the Hadith is the real history of the Quran; they go hand in hand. Hadith only gives us the information how the Quran came in to being in its present form. Unless and until there is sufficient evidence to produce, it is illogical and improper to arge in favour of its accuracy and completness. Historical facts cannot be nullified on the basis of mere assumption.

Regarding the ‘Stoning’

According to the book of Allah (Kitab Allah), Umar reports in the Hadith that stoning to death is the punishment for adultary. But in the present Quran we fine it differently. We read in Sura 24:2 that: The women and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes.

The above punishment can be seen in all the accepted writings of the Hadith. One of them reports as follows: "God sent Muhammed and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning, we read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it, The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God's book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah. p.684).

Not only Umar made this disclosure but he also gave a fairly sensitive prologue to it to explain what he was going to say and why he was doing so. The preamble reads as follows in another record of the tradition.:

Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me". (Sahih al Bukhari. vol.8.p.539).

Ibin Ishaq's records in Sirat Rasulullah the following words as Umar said: ‘He who does not understand that he said, must reject what he said He understood the importance of the things he was going to say and that it was going to bring promiscuous response. At the time of his message, it seems, the verse concerning the "stoning" was only removed, but the Muslim youngsters had no knowledge about it. Umar expected unfavourable response to his statement.

He had sufficient evidence to support his claim, though Sura 24:2 was not known widely amoung the Muslims. Actually, was it received unknowingly? No, since it was stated by an intimate and important companion of Muhammed, it cannot be completely rejected or pretended as if it was not known. Moreover, many traditions record that Muhamed had accepted the code that the guilty individuals of an adultrous act be stoned. Let us notice one instance:

Ibin Shihab reported that a man in the time of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) acknowledged having committed adultery and confessed it four times. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) then ordered and he was stoned. (Muwatta Iman Malik, p. 350).

In the record of Umar's speech from the pulpit in this same work of Hadith, a part of theactual verse is recorded and Umar is said to have recited it to the congregation assembled in the mosque in Medina. It reads: ash-shaykhu washshyakhatu ithaa zanayaa faarjumuu-’ humaa the adult men and women who commit adultery, stone them’. Some Muslims say it is hard to find a place in the Quran where these words can be interposed, yet other works state that they belonged to a such larger passage now missing from the Quran. Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fadail al Quran contains a folio on verses missing from the Quran, which includes the ‘stoning verse’, and gives it in its complete form:

Ubai b. Ka'b said to me, "O Zirr, how many verses did you count (or how many verses did you read) in Surat al Ahzab?" "Seventy-two or seventy three", I answered. Said he, "Yet it is used to be equal to Surat al-Baqara(ii), and we used to read in it the Verse of Stoning". Said I, "And what is the Verse of Stoning?" He said, "If a grown man and woman commit adultery, stone them without hesitation, as a warning from Allah, for Allah is mighty, wise". (Jeffery, "Abu Ubaid on Verses Missing from the Quran", The Muslim World, Vol. 28.p.62).

The same folio has another tradition in which Umar is said to have declared: "Some people say, ‘What is this about the stoning? there is nothing in Allah's book except scourging’, whereas the Apostle stoned and we stoned with him. By Allah, were it not that people might say that Umar had added something to Allah's book, I would have written it in just as it was revealed’ (op.cit.,p.63). This supports the suggestions that Umar's apprehensions about his disclosure stemmed partly from the fact that it was contrary to the teaching of the Quran as it now stands in Surah 24.2. The same tradition recorded about the lengthy passage missing from Surah 33 (Suratul-Ahzab) is also recorded in the as-Sunanul-Kubra of Ahmad Ibn al-Hussain al-Baihaqi and is quoted on page 80 of Burton's The Collection of the Quran. The writer adds that "This version of the stoning verse is a fair imitation of the Quran style" (op.cit) It is also useful to point out that in another tradition regarding the punishement for stoning two men brought a case to Muhammed and expressly requested him to take a decision according to the book of Aallah. ‘An unmarried man committed adultery with a wife of another man’ - they said. ‘I can take decision for both of you, according to the book of Allah’ - Muhammed answered (Muwatta Imam Malik.p.351). The young bachelor was exiled for one year after scourging him hundred times and the woman was stoned too. Tradition makes it very clear that this punishment was executed according to the book of Allah. Thus, for this self contradictary subjects, a similar judgement was executed by stoning to the married ones and scourging to the unmarried ones. This same expositary style of the Sunnah of Muhammed is still continued as the law today in the Jurisprudence schools of the Islam.

There are some Muslims who search in the Quran to find out the evidence in order to stone the adulterers. They used to refer to the verse which says about a woman who was caught for adultress act kept in a house arrest till her death (Sura 4:15). If this indistinct verse be taken as a clear evidence for stoning the adulterers, then that is nothing but speculation. If this law was in the Quran, Umar would have never said so. He revealed so, because he was afraid to include the left out verse. Now this verse is not found in the Quran. That is the reason why Umar said this thing. We can find a better instances from the following situation: "Thus the Quran not only speaks of flogging, and not death, as punishment for adultery, but it positively excludes death or stoning to death." (Ali, The Religion of Islam. p. 617).

This same author, however, has an ingenious solution to the problem of the missing verses. He alleges that when Umar spoke of the Kitab Allah he was not referring to the Quran but to the Jewish Torah and adds: "In all likelihood Umar only spoke of ‘rajm’ as the punishment for adultery in the Mosaic law and he was understood" (p.620). On top of this he has the audacity to conclude: "That the present Torah does not give stoning as the punishment for adultery is clear proof that the text has been altered" (p.618). Such an elliptical way of reasoning almost defies comment. On the other hand it is hardly likely that Umar would have spoken of the Torah, not by its common name, but as Kitab Allah, when he must have known that his hearers would automatically presume that he was referring about the Quran.

Furthermore, there is no possibility to assume that, that was referring the Torah, since these verses were said to be revealed to Muhammed. If it were told about any other book with such a sensation except the holy book of the Islam, it would have been considered as a sheer improper action.

Since stoning for adultary was a widely practiced law during the period of Muhammed, we prompted to believe that the statement of Umar was a part of the Quran. If this portions were excluded from the Quran, then we can definitely say that the Quran, which we possess now, is incomplete.

The Different Recitation Style of the Quran

The facts which we have been discussing, can be well understood from the important portions of the so called collections of the writings. One record on the discrepancy of the compiled books of the Quran is still preserved, although the ancient manuscripts of the Quran compiled by Ibn Masud and others were consumed.

In the fourth Islamic century there were three books written on this question of the old Codices which had some influences on later studies. These were the works already mentioned of Ibn al-Anbari, Ibn Ashta and Ibn Abi Dawud. In each case the book was entitled Kitab al-Masahif, and in each case the work, while dealing with the Utmanic text, its collection, orthography, and the general Massoretic details with regard to it, dealt also with what was known of the Old Codices which it had replaced. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran p. 10).

In the book quoted Arthur Jeffery lists, on page 17, the thirty-one different books and records consulted which list the various different readings between the texts. Jeffery's own list in his book is a composition of the many hundreds of variant readings recorded in these books. In many cases there is agreement between a number of the codices on readings that differ with the Utmanic text in each case. No copies exist of any of the early codices, but the list of variant readings from the two just mentioned (i.e. Ibn Masud and Ubayy) is extensive. (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Quran. p.45).

We read in Sura 2:275 as follows: "allathina yaakuluunarribaa laa yaquumuuna - those who swallow will not survive". Although the same beginning is found in the book of Ibn Masud, after the last word, another word, ‘Yawmal qiyaamati’ is added to it (yawmal qiyaamati means on the day of judgment ( Jeffery, materials for the history of the text of the Quran, p. 31). The same difference is inducted in the manuscript of Talhas, but only it is found to be in first part of the book (p.cit. p.343).

We read on the nineth verse of the Sura as follows: ‘Yukhaadi'uunallaaha’ - they will deceive Allah; whereas Ibn Masud puts it as: ‘yakhda'uunallaaha’- they are deceiving allah. Many a time, we find the discrepancies of the texts, except the Utmanic text, are seemed to be improving and developing the Utmanic text; but sometimes they contradict him too. Sura 2:9 might have been borrowed, since the original verse had been questionable theological ground.

We find an interesting discrepancy on the first verse in the same Sura of the text of Ibn Mazood. Utmanic text tells: ‘Thaalikal kitaabu laa raybu fiih’ There is no doubt concerning this verse - Sura 2:1). The text of Ibn Mazud begins as ‘Tanziilul kitaabu, All the verses are like this.

‘These verses are sent down; there is no doubt it’. ‘Tanziil’ is the word used for sent down’. The same word is used when it referred to the Quran also (Al quranul hakkim tanzeelal azzezz raheem" - that which is sent down to the earth by the Almighty and Merciful. This is how it is explained (Sura/36:2-5).

We read on Sura 5:89 of the approved text as follows: ‘Fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaam’ -fast for three days; whereas on the Utmanic text or on the other sub-text, the usage is found to be as ‘mutataabiaat’, which means, ‘If the vow cannot be fulfilled, fast continusely for three days, instead. The same usage is found on the following texts such as Ibn Masud, Ubayy ibnka'b Ibin Abbas, Zaid bin Jubair and other important qurras.

Tabari (ob.310A.H.) quotes authorities for the assertion that Ubayy b. Kab and Abdullah b. Masud added the word ‘successive’, making the penance much more severe. He adds that as the word is "not found in our copies," we cannot build anything upon it; the analogy of compensation for failure to fast in Ramadan (ii.181) indicates that the days need not be successive, still it would be safer to make them so. Shafi' (ob.204 A.H) seems to leave it to the individual Muslim to choose the reading which he prefers. It is a conceivable view that the word successive might have been added or omitted by the Prophet himself.(Margoliouth, "Textual variations of the Quran," The Muslim world, Vol. 15, p. 335).

A very famous variant reading occurs in Sura 3.19 which reads in the authorised text ‘Innaddina indallaahil Islam’ -‘the religion before God is Islam’, i.e., the submission. Ibn Masud's text is said to have had the word al-Hanifiyyah- ‘the true way’ in place of Islam (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran, p. 32). This may well be an earlier title for Muhammed's religion, especially as there were a group of monotheistic ‘hanifs’, as they were called, in Mecca during his early days. Significantly both titles are applied to Abraham in the same Sura. He is called ‘haniifaam muslimaan, being,’ true in faith, submissive' Sura 3.67).

Later Muslim scholars always take the word in this sense, sometimes also using ‘hanif’ as equivalent of ‘Muslim’, and the ‘hanifiyya’ as equivalent of ‘Islam’. (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Quran p.16).

Another writer also concludes that the variant reading in Ibn Masud's text suggests that at one time Hanifiyya was used to denote the doctrine preached by Muhammed and was only later replaced by Islam (Gibb, Muhammedanism, p.26). Yet another writer says of the word al-Hanifiyyah:

This word was read instead of Islam by Ibn Masud in Quran 3.19/17, and was presumably the original reading. It also occurs in sayings of Muhammed to the effect that the religion he took to Medina was the Hanifiyah....... The variant in the codex of Ibn Masud, too, is a reminder that early Medinan passages of the Quran may have been revised to bring them into line with the later nomenclature. (Watt, Muhammed at Medina, p. 304).

These readings we have considered are only a fraction of the number recorded in the works cited by Arthur Jeffery but they do serve to show to what extent the earliest codices of the Quran differed from one another. The codex of Abu Baker which Utman finally authorised at the expenses of all the other was, so it appears, just one among many, varying with all of them to one degree of another. There may be one standard text of the Quran today, but the evidence weighs heavily against the assertion that this text, merely a reproduction of just one of the early codices, is coincidentally a perfect replica of the original Quran, to the very last Letter, as it was delivered by Muhammed to his companions.

In closing it will be useful to mention a few further passages affecting the text of the Quran spoken of in the major works of Hadith. Surah 2.238 urges the Muslims to observe their prayers carefully, and emphasises ‘salaatil wusta’ - the ‘middle prayer’. Ayishah is reported to have told Abu Yunus, her freedman, to add in the words ‘wa salaatil asr-’ and the afternoon prayer’- to the text of the Quran as ‘she had heard it from the Apostle of Allah’ (Mauwatta Imam Malik, p. 64).

It is also widely reported that the Quran originally contained a law forbidding marriage between two people who had been breast fed by the same woman.

A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the holy Quran that ten clear sucklings make the marriages unlawful then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the holy Quran (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 740).

Ayisha clearly stated that the verses, one abrogating the other, were part of the Quran text. Today neither is found in it. In another similar tradition we read that Abu Musa al-Ashari told the qurra of Basra, an early Muslim centre in the province of Iraq:

We used to recite a Sura which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2.p.501)

In these few pages we have merely considered a selection of evidence regarding the collection of the Quran and its early textual history. Nevertheless the material we provided is sufficient to reject their claim that the Quran is perfect and that the Bible is altered. There are some portions in the Bible which seem to be self-contradictary and inconsistant; however, we found so many discrepancies that are found in the history of the Quran. In fact, those discrepancies are more than that of the Bible. Nobody can easily deny these evidence for the sake of the preconceived notions consolidated in the heart, because those facts have already been published and they have authoritative support in the writings also. Now let us consider another fact too.

We need to discuss the difference between the Bible and the Quran with regard to their compilation. The Quran was compiled by one man, at one place, within a short time period - merely twenty three years. The length of time between its oral narration and cannonical acknowledgement is very short period . On the other hand, the Bible was written by several writers within a period of two thousand years. Furthermore, it existed many centuries prior to the Quran; however, the seemed dicrepancies that are found in the Bible are only a few in respect of the Quran. The fact that we don't find any serious discrepancies in the Quran, not because there is none, but when the Church of Christ has preserved genuinly even the minute difference for the sake of the truth whereas, the Muslims, during the period of Utman, took heed in burning all the manuscripts of the Quran but one. The ancient manuscripts of the Bible are still preserved today. But where are the manuscripts of the Quran? So, we advise you to read the Bible, so that, you may know the truth, for the Bible is the living Word that has the power to transform the life of every man.

Conclusion

We, in this booklet, have pointed out a few things pertaining to the compilation of the Quran; whereas, if we consider the compilation of the Bible, we will realise that it will definitely a wonder.

Though, the Bible was written over forty writers covering a period of 1,500 years, and though the last author of the Bible has been dead 1,900 years, from Genesis through Revelation, we feel as if it were written by one man at one place. The students of the Bible should know the Bible for many reasons, but the primary one is because God is its author. All Bible students know that God is the Creator, Redeemer and the Judge, but do we think of Him as the Author of the Bible? Human writers feel it vital that we read their books; it is much more important that we read God's book, the Bible.

About fourteen centuries before Christ, our Bible had its beginning in the Sinai desert. In this arid place God spoke to Moses, who once had been a prince in Egypt and was nearly 120 years at that time. At the Lord's command, Moses picked up his pen and began writing scriptures. The first five books, Genesis through Deuteronomy. More than 1,500 years later, the Divine manuscript was completed on a lonely, windswept island in the Mediteranean Sea by a Apostle. Over the centuries, the sixty six books of the Bible has been completed by writers-representing various background and writing styles yet serving as channels for God's Word. Yet, in spite of these variations in time and talent, the completed work displays a marvellous theological, geographical, topical and biographical unity.

Mankind is by nature sinful and needs the righteousness of God. We must be separted from sin and set apart in righteousness. If we are to approach God, we must do so on God's terms; we must have new lives in which our sins have been forgiven and obliterated.

It is one thing to be convinced of the need for the new life, but it is an entirely different thing to acquire the new life. When we are saved we are said to be new creatures (2 Cor. 5:7); to have passed from death to life (John 5:24); to have been transformed from the rule of darkness to the kingdom of God's Son (Col. 1:3); to have been born again (John 3:3) and to have been adopted by God (Gal.4:4,5). These wonderful results of having new life in Christ are offered to all who trust in Christ for salvation.

Dear friend ! Christ died and rose again. He is still alive today. He loves you and wants to save you, therefore, open your heart and receive, Him as your personal Saviour. May God bless you !