Al-Hajj�j, Kit�b al-Mas�hif & Gilchrist

M S M Saifullah & Muhammad Ghoniem

� Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

---

There is a rule of thumb which one must learn. Orientalists opine and Missionaries quote them as gospel truth. This will get clearer as we go a bit further. Let us begin where this issue started from. The issue was first polemicised by ^cAbd al-Mas�h al-Kind� in his apology and uttered by Emperor Leo.

As for your (book), you have already given us examples of such falsifications, and one knows, among others, of a certain Hajj�j, 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 Abu Turab, for Hajj�j could not make them disappear completely.^[1]

In the footnotes, Jeffery mentions:

This is a rather confused reference to the work of al-Hajj�j on the text of the Qur'�n. the orthodox Muslim theory assumes that the text as canonized by ^cUthm�n was the final canonization, but there is a reason to believe that a recension of ^cUthm�n's text was made by the direction of al-Hajj�j, so that we only know of the text of ^cUthm�n in this later recension. This fact was apparently well known to oriental Christian writers, for al-Kindi in his apology, speaks of al-Hajj�j 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 al-Kind� has always been looked at askance as a piece of Christian polemic.^[2]

Jeffery also mentions about putting of diacritical marks in the Qur'�nic text by al-Hajj�j to make the reading proper because some ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs started mispronouncing the letters. To this Jeffery says:

It would thus seem that some revision of the text, as well as clarification by division and pointing, was undertaken by al-Hajj�j, and that this was known to the Christians of that day, and naturally exagerrated by them for polemical purposes.^[3]

Apart from such exagerration, the story of account attributed to Leo by Levond (or Ghevond) is mentioned http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Hajjaj/hajjaj.html#1 - as a later forgery to scandalize the question of al-Hajj�j by some later Christian writer. So, we might as well stop here and dismiss all the allegations of John Gilchrist. But let us go further to expose his deceptive tactics.

In his book The Qur'�n as Scripture, Arthur Jeffery relies on Kit�b al-Mas�hif of Ibn Ab� D�w�d to say:

When we come to examine the accounts of the activity of al-Hajj�j 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'�n 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'�n, having copies of his new text sent to the great metropolitan centres and ordering the destruction of earlier copies in existence there, much as ^cUthm�n had done earlier. Moreover, this new text promulgated by al-Hajj�j seems to have undergone more or less extensive alterations.^[4]

Jeffery, in fact, proposed the minor recension theory by al-Hajj�j. This was also propogated by other Orientalists as it can be seen from the examples below. The Orientalists take care in wording the issue whereas missionaries are as usual driven by crusade mentality to prove Islam wrong.

In the book Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period the author carefully states the issue of al-Hajj�j without throwing light on the 'variant readings'.

However, this seems to be only a partial explanation of what happened. On the other hand we have the tradition in Ibn Abi-Da'ud that al-Hajj�j 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'�n 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.^[5]

John Gilchrist, a Christian Missionary, who quotes both the references Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period and The Qur'�n As Scripture as "Contemporary Books on the Qur'�n" does not even tell the whole story. In his book Jam^c al-Qur'�n: The Codification Of The Qur'�n Text, Jeffery's skepticism "he seems" or "al-Hajj�j seems" is quoted as reality.

The whole section continues to name each one of the amendments made by al-Hajj�j so that the Qur'�n text as we have it today is not only the 'Uthmanic text but also a subsequent minor recension of it by the Iraqi governor.^[6]

And obviously, there is no mention of the Christian polemic concerning al-Hajj�j. It is a frequent method employed by Christian Missionaries to supress the information which goes against their viewpoint.

The report which is frequently quoted is mentioned in Kit�b al-Mas�hif of Ibn Ab� D�w�d which is available in Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'�n: The Old Codices, 1937, Arthur Jeffery, E J Brill, Leiden.

It is important to remember that:

• The isnad of the report is not verified yet.

• The reasons for changes of 11 letters in ^cUthm�n's^(R) mush�f by al-Hajj�j are not clear. This is presumably either due to the mistakes made by the scribe(s) or preference of one Qir�'�t 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 Qir�'a over the other.

Further research needs to be done along these lines. The report as well as the translation is given below.

---

The translation of the report as follows:

Section: What al-Hajj�j Had Changed in ^cUthm�n's Mush�f?

Ab� Bakr said that it was there in the book of my father that a man told; I asked my father, "Who was that man?". He said,"Abb�d ibn Suhaib told us from Awf ibn Ab� Jam�la that al-Hajj�j bin Y�suf changed in ^cUthm�n's mush�f 11 letters". He said in

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

and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shar�'atan wa minh�jan was changed to shir'atan wa minh�jan

and in Y�nus (10:22) huwal-ladh� yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum

and in Y�suf (12:45) 'an�-�t�kum bita'wilihi was changed to 'an� onabbio'kum bita'wilihi

and in Mu'min�n (23:85-89) sayaq�l�na lill�h....lill�h....lill�h he made the two last occurrences all�h....all�h

and in as-Shu^cara in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhraj�na and in the story of Lut (26:167) it was minal marjum�na. It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjum�na and in the story of Lut to minal mukhraj�na

and in az-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamn� baynahum m�^c ishahum and he changed it to ma^c�shatahum

and in al-ladh�na kafar� (47:15) min m�^cinn ghayri yasin was changed to min m�^cinn ghayri �sin

and in al-Had�d (57:7) he changed fal-ladh�na �manu minkum wat-taqaw lahum 'ajrun kab�r to minkum wa anfaqu.

and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) wa m� huwa 'alal-ghaybi bidhan�n to bidan�n^[7]

The Nature Of Changes Which Al-Hajj�j Made

Interestingly enough this report does not provide any clue of the nature of changes that were made by al-Hajj�j in the mush�f of ^cUthm�n^(R). An in-depth study shows that they are the differences in the Qir�'�t. A crash course on Qir�'�t can be obtained from http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html#2 - here .

So, we will deal with the changes which al-Hajj�j made one by one, inshallah.

Dr. ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n did research on this issue for his Ph.D thesis in University of Im�m Muhammad Ibn Saud. His thesis was published as a book from Riyadh in two volumes. The book is called Aar�' al-Mustashriq�n Hawl al-Qur'�n al-Kar�m wa Tafs�r: Dir�sah Wa Naqd (The Views Of The Orientalists About The Holy Qur'�n & Its Interpretation: Study and Criticism).

After quoting the had�th of Ibn Ab� D�w�d, Dr. Radw�n mentions in his footnotes about the Qir�'�t which the changes are associated with.

al-Baqarah (2:259) lam yatasanna wanzur without ha to lam yatasannah with ha.^[8]

Comments: Both readings are among The Seven as it is mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in Hujjat al-Qir�'�t, page 142/143, where he says that Hamzah and al-Kis�'i read lam yatasanna without the letter 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.^[9]

and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shar�'atan wa minh�jan was changed to shir'atan wa minh�jan.^[10]

Comments: an-Nakh'� and Ibn Wathth�b read with a fathah on the letter sh�n (i.e shar'atan) and the whole community of readers read shir'atan and I found nobody mentioning shar�'atan.^[11]

and in Y�nus (10:22) huwal-ladh� yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum^[12]

Comments: Both readings are among The Seven. They were mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in his book Hujjat al-Qir�'�t, page 329, where he says that Ibn 'Aamir read yunash-shirukum and the other readers read yusay-yirukum.^[13]

and in Y�suf (12:45) 'an�-�t�kum bita'wilihi was changed to 'an� onabbio'kum bita'wilihi^[14]

Comments: al-Hasan read 'an�-�tikom with a long hamzah having a fathah followed by the letter t� having a kasrah and a silent y�. And in wasl (i.e., when not stopping on the word), N�f�' and Ab� Ja^cfar read 'an� onabbio'kum as it is mentioned by Ahmad ^cAbdul Ghany ad-Domy�t� in his book Ith�fu Fodal�' ilbashar Fil Qir�'�t Ilarba'a 'Ashar, page 265.^[15]

and in Mu'min�n (23:85-89) sayaq�l�na lill�h....lill�h....lill�h he made the two last occurrences all�h....all�h^16]

Comments: All these readings are among The Seven as mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in Hujjat al-Qir�'�t, page 490, where he says that Ab� 'Aamir read all�h...all�h with an alif and the others read lill�h...lill�h and all readings agreed on the first occurrence (i.e., lill�h). ^[17]

and in as-Shu^cara in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhraj�na and in the story of Lut (26:167) it was minal marjum�na. It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjum�na and in the story of Lut to minal mukhraj�na.^[18]

Comment: I didn't find anybody who mentioned what the author has said.^[19]

and in az-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamn� baynahum m�^c ishahum and he changed it to ma^c�shatahum^[20]

Comments: The reading of the community (jumhoor) of readers is ma^cishatahum in singular. al-'Amash and ^cAbdull�h and Ibn ^cAbb�s and Sufy�n read m�^cishahum in plural as mentioned by Ab� Hayy�n in Al-Bahr al-Muh�t, VIII - page 13.^[21]

and in al-ladh�na kafar� (47:15) min m�^cinn ghayri yasin was changed to min m�^cinn ghayri �sin^[22]

Comments: The Seven except Ibn Kath�r read ghayri �sin with a madd (a long vowel), as for the reading y�sinin it is sh�dh and was mentioned by Ab� Hayy�n who reported it using the words it was said that .... Refer to Hujjat al-Qir�'�t in page 667 by Ibn Zanjalah and the interpretation of Al-Bahr al-Muh�t, VIII - page 79.^[23]

and in al-Had�d (57:7) he changed fal-ladh�na �manu minkum wat-taqaw lahum 'ajrun kab�r to minkum wa anfaqu. ^[24]

Comment: I could not find the one who mentioned this reading. ^[25]

and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) wa m� huwa 'alal-ghaybi bidhan�n to bidan�n^[26]

Comment: Ibn Kath�r and Ab� 'Amr and al-Kis�'i and Rees and Ibn Mahr�n from Rawh read with the letter dh� and the others read with the letter d�d, and so it is in all the Codices (the books). Refer to An-Nashr fil Qir�'�t il'ashr, II - page 398/399. ^[27]

Dr. Radw�n went on to say:

These readings as I have just highlighted are among the correct ( http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/asb7.html - ), http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/asb3.html - Mutaw�tir and well established that we can read in any form it has been drawn into and among them are ones I could not verify which make us doubt about their being attributed to al-Hajj�j, especially because he was not isolated from the Ummah. Much more, in his time, no Muslim would let him change or replace anything traced back to the Prophet^(P) whether it concerned Qur'�n or hadith.

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

• al-Hajj�j being loyal to ^cUthm�n (or from his court) and since he wouldn't forgive those who let ^cUthm�n down on the day of ad-D�r (or the house), how could he question ^cUthm�n and his codex and make changes in it.

• The codex of ^cUthm�n was spread everywhere and its copies in the time of ^cUthm�n were countless. How about their number in the Umayyads time? Undoubtedly, their number has increased. Moreover, al-Hajj�j 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 the other districts while there were thousands of copies! Much more, history did not mention contradictions between the Codices of Iraq and the other Codices. It is well known that the Great Book is saved in the chests of Muslims as much as it is saved in written form. If al-Hajj�j 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 Ban� Umayyah in the administration of the lands. They didn't spare any effort in showing the negative aspects of Ban� Umayyah and in getting close to the people by spreading justice and defending it. If the Abbassids had found any changes in the Holy Book, it would have been the greatest opportunity for them to show how misleading Ban� Umayyah were and, thus, give their own rule some additional legitimacy.^[28]

To conclude the issue of al-Hajj�j and the changes he made in the Qur'�n:

• It is very obvious that there was no new recension after ^cUthm�n united Muslims on the basis of single text. Muslims have agreed on this. al-Hajj�j's role is rather well documented in the literature concerning ^cUlum al-Qur'�n (Sciences of the Qur'�n). It has been shown above that the readings which he changed are http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/asb3.html - mutawatir . There is only the difference in the Qir�'�t. Muslims have accepted various Qir�'�t as authentic provided they satisfy some conditions. They are the following:
  • The first condition was that the recitation have an authentic chain of narration in which the chain of narrators was continuous, the narrators were all known to be righteous and they were all known to possess good memories. It was also required that the recitation be conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of the chain of narration below the level of Sahaabah (the condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic chains but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted as explanations (Tafseer) of the Sahaabah but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur'�n. As for the narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of narration, they were classified as Baatil (false) and rejected totally.

  • The second condition was that the variations in recitations match known Arabic grammatical constructions. Unusual constructions could be verified by their existence in passages of pre-Islamic prose or poetry.

  • The third condition required the recitation to coincide with the script of one of the copies of the Qur'�n distributed during the era of Caliph 'Uthman (RA). Hence differences which result from dot placement (i.e., ta'lamoon and ya'lamoon) are considered acceptable provided the other conditions are met. A recitation of a construction for which no evidence could be found would be classified Shaadhdh. This classification did not mean that all aspects of the recitation was considered Shaadhdh. it only meant that the unverified constructions were considered Shaadhdh.^[29]

• As pointed out earlier, how could al-Hajj�j, who was governor of Iraq, a small part of Muslim land, able to change the Qur'�nic text completely. The only changes he made was in ^cUthm�n's mush�f not in any other text as far as the report mentioned above suggests. The complete change of Qur'�n is not documented in the Islamic history at all. And above all how could he change what was commited in the memory of Muslims in the Islamic empire.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/ - Islamic Awareness http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran - Qur'�n http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text - Text http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Gilchrist - Gilchrist's Refutation Al-Hajj�j, Kit�b al-Mas�hif & Gilchrist

And Allah knows best.

References

[1] Arthur Jeffery, Ghevond's Text Of The Correspondence Between 'Umar II and Leo III, 1944, Harvard Theological Review, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., p. 298.

[2] Arthur Jeffery, Op.Cit, p.298.

[3] Ibid. p.298.

[4] Arthur Jeffery, The Qur'�n As Scripture, 1952, Russell F Moore Company Inc., New York, p.99.

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

[6] John Gilchrist, Jam^c al-Qur'�n: The Codification Of The Qur'�n Text, 1989, MERCSA.

[7] For Kit�b al-Mas�hif see Arthur Jeffery's, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'�n: The Old Codices, 1937, E J Brill, Leiden, pp. 117-118.

[8] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, p. 117.

[9] Dr. ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Aar�' al-Mustashriq�n Hawl al-Qur'�n al-Kar�m wa Tafs�r: Dir�sah Wa Naqd, Volume I, 1992, D�r T�bah, Riy�dh, pp. 430.

[10] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 117.

[11] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.430

[12] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 117.

[13] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.430

[14] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 117.

[15] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.431.

[16] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[17] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.431.

[18] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[19] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.431.

[20] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[21] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.431.

[22] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[23] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.431.

[24] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[25] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.431.

[26] Arthur Jeffery, Kit�b al-Mas�hif, Op.Cit, p. 118.

[27] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.431.

[28] ^cUmar Ibn Ibr�h�m Radw�n, Op.Cit, p.430-431.

[29] Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah Al-Hujuraat, 1990, Tawheed Publications, Riyadh, p.32.

------------------------------------

For Tawhid. Keep cut and paste. The refutation will be there.

Please learn more the argumentation.

http://www.islamdefenders.com/arguments/arguments_quran.htm - http://www.islamdefenders.com/arguments/arguments_quran.htm