In Search of the Original Koran: The True History of the Revealed Text (4 page)

Ibn Mujahid (245-324 CE) explains in his Book on the Seven Readings (Kitab al-sab`a fi al qira'at) that "people were in disagreement about the reading [of the Koran], in the same way they were about the Law. The details (athar) on the Koran that they derived from the sayings of the Companions of the Prophet and from their Followers contained divergences that are a gracious gift for Muslims." 14 Orthodox writers, faced with the variability of the Koranic text and the consequent danger that hovers over its authenticity, could only be brave in the face of this bad luck. They quite simply transformed inconvenience into an advantage: variability, a source of suspicion, became a divine blessing for a humanity that was linguistically diverse, that found it hard to be content with a rigid literalness. It is this pointless justification of the variants of the Koranic text that has permitted their official adoption and their partial conservation down to our day.

Thus the old companion of the Prophet Anas ibn Malik (died in 709 CE) was not embarrassed, according to the chronicler Tabari (died in 923 CE), to substitute for verse 73:6 the verb aswabu (to be more just) for the one retained in the official version aqwamu (to be more correct)." Another type of variant is the inversion of terms, of which one finds an example in the corpus of Ibn Masud in verse 112:3: "He was not begotten and He has not begotten," instead of "He has not begotten and he was not begotten." 16 Even the most important surah of the Koran, the Fatiha ("The Opening," "Exordium"), has not escaped this uncertainty. Thus, in the verse (1:6), the spelling of the word sirdt (path) varies, according to Ibn Mujahid, among the codices, from sirat to zirat, and he concludes on a note of resignation, " . . . and the Kitab does not specify the spelling."" Of course by "Kitab," the writer means the Koran, undoubtedly such as was reported in the various manuscripts of that epoch. This remark by such an important author is of the greatest interest, since it testifies to the facts that during the first century of Islam there did not as yet exist a written text unified as to its written form, and that the greatest scholars versed in knowledge of the Koranic text found it impossible to decide among the variants offered to them, so much did oral tradition show its modest limitations.

The same opening surah offers us another remarkable variant of the same verse we have just mentioned. While the official vulgate commences this verse with "Take us!" Ibn Masud substitutes "Lead us!" and in the corpus of Ubayy and All this becomes "Guide us! Strengthen us!"; but an anonymous variant gives "May your hand guide us! Take us!" 8

We find the same thing in the celebrated surah Al-Asr: there are important divergences between the official version and those attributed to Ibn Masud and All. In the vulgate we read "By the Hour of the afternoon (wal-'asri)! Man is in perdition. Except those who have believed" (103:1-3); yet in the version attributed to Ibn Masud, we have "By the Hour of the afternoon! Certainly We have created Man for his perdition. Except those who have believed," and in the one attributed to All we have "By the Hour of the afternoon! By the vicissitudes of fate! Man is in perdition, and is so until the end of time."

Could this last version, cruelly pessimistic, be an original version, or more precisely a remnant from a first draft that was later ameliorated in both content and form? It is difficult to answer this, of course, given the extreme poverty of ancient sources available to the historian. But we will need to recall this phenomenon, for as we have seen, revelation accommodated-and very liberally-many variations in its literal expression. And textual practice obeyed a continual reworking of its formal shape, which generally passed for a normal exercise. During a walk with Umar, after a dinner given by Abu Bakr, Muhammad heard a man in prayer reciting the Koran in quite a peculiar fashion: "`Who advised him,' the Prophet asked Umar, `to read the Koran in its first form (ratb), as it came down? He should read it according to the reading of Ibn Umm `Abd'!"20

This anecdote is of the greatest interest, since it clearly establishes the existence in Muhammad's time of two states of the revealed text: a first state and a reworked state that have been modified and corrected. The form of the freshly revealed text is designated here by ratb, generally applied to describe edible dates that are freshly picked or that are tender. So, during its revelation, the divine text was destined to undergo a shaping that affected the style as well as the content. This is the case with the variants that we have just seen in the brief surah 103. It is quite probable that the last pessimistic version of this surah constitutes its ratb form, its primitive state that was destined to be modified.

We may also give another illustration of this process of reworking the text. In the course of his inventory of the Korans in rolls conserved in Istanbul, Solange Ory has found in the second fragment of roll no. 8 (Istanbul nos. 3-4) this variant of verse (10:82): ` fa-ghalabu hund al-haqqa [they here vanquished the Truth]," whereas the Koranic text of the vulgate says "wa yuhiqqu al-llahu al-hagga [and God will reestablish the Truth]."21 The theme of this verse refers to the story of Moses and Pharaoh. When the Egyptian magicians show Moses what they are capable of, he challenges them by neutralizing their charms. It is clear that the variant relates to the first version of the story, which asserts that it is the magicians who at first have the upper hand over Moses, and consequently over God. This last observation appeared, over time, as rather shocking, and so the passage must then have been remodeled in order to give a more suitable version, that of our vulgate.

This reworking of the ratb text is found again through the variants of verse 2:237, where the act of love is designated by the verb "touch," while Ibn Mas`ud's version gives "copulate."22

Revisions are concerned with conventions, but also with respectability, for example, by using more literary terms like `ihn (101:5) in place of suf for dyed wool, or mu'sada (104:8) in place of mutbaga.23

The verse 33:20 ("They think that the Confederates have not withdrawn, and if the Confederates should come, they would wish they were in the desert among the Bedouins") has the following variant attributed to Ibn Masud: "They think that the Confederates have withdrawn, and when they discover that the Confederates have not withdrawn, they would sooner be in the desert, among the Bedouins." Another verse, 58:4 ("This is imposed so that you may believe in Allah and in his Apostle. Such are the limits [hudud] set by Allah") has a radically different variant that is attributed to Ibn Masud and Ubayy: "This is imposed on you so that you may know that Allah is near to you when you pray, ready to answer when you implore Him. For disbelievers there is a cruel torment!"

Still more important is this variant attributed to Ubayy: "And when Jesus, son of Mary, says `0 Sons of Israel! I am the Apostle of Allah sent to you and I announce to you a Prophet whose community will be the last community and through whom Allah will put the seal on the Prophets and on the Apostles.' [When Jesus says this], the Sons of Israel said, `This is evident sorcery."' The official version of the vulgate, however, gives "And when Jesus son of Mary says `0 Sons of Israel! I am the Apostle of Allah sent to you, declaring truthful what in the Torah came before me and announcing an Apostle who will come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.' But when Jesus came with Proofs, the Sons of Israel said, `This is evident sorcery! "'(61:6). It is curious to see that where the official version mentions the name "Ahmad," which is supposed to be that of Muhammad, but without mentioning the "seal" of prophecy, Ubayy's version does the inverse. This latter version might be later than that of the vulgate. As we see, while the object of the accusation of sorcery put into the mouths of the "Sons of Israel" are here the "Proofs" given by Jesus, in Ubayy's version the label applies to the announcement of the forthcoming "seal" of the prophets, which is rather incomprehensible. Moreover, Ubayy's version has a more radical tone, insisting more on the primacy of the new religion. Nevertheless, for these reasons one cannot deduce the factualness of Ubayy's version. It might correspond to a reactualiza- tion of a text at a time when the rupture with the People of the Book was consummated.

Let me mention one final variant, attributed to Ibn Mas'ud: "[He is] a Prophet who communicates to you the Scripture that I made descend on him and which contains the stories about the Prophets whom I had sent before him to each people." The official version is rather different: "[Allah has sent] an apostle who proclaims to you the explicit Signs [aya] of Allah, so that he may lead the faithful who do good works from darkness to the light" (65:11).

If the Koran was inspired unto Muhammad according to its meaning and just as it is in the celestial tablet, then it is perfectly comprehensible why the first Muslim generations, starting with the Prophet himself, were not fussy about the letter of the divine message, as we have just seen. Synonymy and successive improvements to the revealed text were part of the prophetic function, just as they were in the work of scribes assigned to this task.

However, this is no longer permissible when it comes to modifying the content of the message, introducing into it ideas not inspired by Allah, or else cutting thematic developments that conformed to the celestial original.

But here is how God himself allows the modification of his own words and overturns the rule of the conformity and eternity of the transmission of his own message: "No Apostle brings a sign (aya) without the permission of Allah. For each period is a Book [revealed]. Allah blots out (yamhu) or confirms what He pleases, and the source [mother] of the Book (umm al-kitab) is with Him" (13:38-39).

In this important declaration, we may perceive a major contradiction that undermines the unity, identity, and authenticity of the divine message. On the one hand, we have seen that the guarantee of the Koranic text is founded on the existence of an archetype, of an original jealously guarded by the heavenly sovereign. On the other hand, the political and social life of a community is subject to laws of evolution and to changes in power relations. Each stage and each difficulty necessitates a specific decision. This is the precise meaning of the fundamental expression of social theology that we have just read: "For each period is a Book revealed (li-kulli `ajal kitab)" (13:38). How can one resolve this conflict between a divine text contained in a tablet closely guarded and preserved from any alteration, and the necessity of adapting to a changeable situation, subject to the law of time periods ('ajal), and consequently obliged to modify revealed texts according to the contingencies of the moment? The Koran does not seem to have a satisfactory solution to this dilemma. It confines itself to deploring the bad faith of those who see in these modifications the tangible proof of a prophetic deception: "And if We have substituted one sign (aya) for another-and Allah knows best What He reveals [in stages]-they say: `Thou art but a forger!' But most of them do not understand. Say: the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation [Koran] from thy Lord with Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims" (16:101-102). We can measure here the breadth of the problem and its gravity. This text clearly echoes the defections of a number of the Prophet's companions after modifications to the revealed text. The Koran alludes to these changes again in an ultimate explanation of these modifications that is not very reassuring: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate (nansukhu) or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Did you not know that Allah has power over all things?" (2:106). And the Koran attacks those who doubt this: "Would you defy [literally, question] your messenger as Moses was defied of old? He that barters faith for ingratitude (kufr) has gone astray from the right path" (2:108).

So we see that the Koran's answer to the objections of the Prophet's skeptical entourage can be summed up in an affirmation of divine omnipotence, and that, in every case, the ultimate goal of these changes made to the revealed text was to test the faith of believers. Curiously, the essential rationale for these modifications in the course of revelation was formulated, in a surreptitious manner, as we saw above in verse 13:38, and it was never taken up again or more amply developed. However, advancing an argument about the necessity of adapting to a shifting situation and to problems that arise over time has a major pitfall: it imperils the validity and identity of revelation, even if its divine authenticity remains unquestioned. This dilemma has hung in all its heavy weight over the propagation of the Muslim faith and over the formation of orthodox theology, but also over the elaboration of the canon of Muhammadian revelation. We will come back to this.