To substantiate the claim that it emanated from Allah the Qur’an had proffered this argument that had it not been from Allah people would have found contradictions and inconsistencies in it. These traditions related to the organization and compilation of the Qur’an have almost succeeded in creating such a situation. Not only that the seminal status of the Prophet’s Companionsوالذين معه   was compromised, but also they (these traditions) project such an image of the holy people (qudsi) that was similar to what the Qur’an characterized as  ان الذين اختلفوا فى الكتاب لفى شقاق بعيد … (Al Baqara: 176). As a matter of fact, a minimal awareness of historical criticism and the critical tool of ‘Antecedents’ (ilm al-rijal) devised by the scholars of traditions themselves would have been enough to refute these traditions. Then, apart from the debate about the process of accessing traditions, these accounts have enough internal evidence to prove that they were fabricated and fanciful. It is difficult to understand that despite this how the compilers of the three Genuine Books of traditions incorporated them in their volumes, an act which was in direct opposition to the promise of اناله لحافظون made in the Qur’an. Some people suggest that such traditions may have been interpolated in the later stages. Whatever the case may be, by accommodating them in their margins through attributing them to reliable and unreliable sources, the Books of Commentaries have ensured that they stay in circulation forever. Our reliable books contain such accounts which, not to speak of traditions, cannot even qualify to be called  ‘observations’ (mashahida). For instance, it is recorded in Sahih Muslim that it was revealed in the Qur’an that ten sips of milk are enough to establish the relationship between the foster mother and the foster child (rida’), then it was rejected, and in its place the verse alluding to ‘five sips’ خمس رضعات معلومات يحرمن was revealed, which is read even today. Howevermuch we tried, we could not locate this verse in the Qur’an. Apart from Muslim, the tradition has been recorded by Nasaei too.[1]

The attitude adopted by our commentators towards history and tradition has largely been responsible for rendering the absolute nature of the Qur’an suspect. Tabari holds a key position in literature on commentaries, and is justifiably regarded as the greatest pioneer of this art. His excessive dependence on history in determining the meaning of the text often becomes reductive, either delimiting the meaning or rendering it stagnant or directionless. In analysing and interpreting Qur’anic verses he takes recourse to such an excessively wide gamut of historical accounts and traditions that in spite of subjecting these traditions to the strictest scrutiny and their summary rejection in the end, the impact left by them cannot be totally obliterated. In the context of the compilation of the Qur’an, if the fabricated tales regarding the Siddiqi version or the Othmanic version have become a part of our consciousness, it is due to the fact that despite the contradiction among the traditions and an awareness of their disastrous consequences, the reader, wittingly or unwittingly, becomes a captive of that mythical world and then he cannot grasp even the most transparent and obvious meaning of the Qur’anic text, and he loses the ability to analyse events in the light of the internal evidence contained in the Qur’an. If the unreliable accounts regarding the Siddiqi version and the Othmanic version are still being quoted in our new Commentary Books, through the Six Authentic Books of Tradition (Sahah Sitta), the reason for it goes back to the climate of myth-making through fanciful and fabricated accounts taken recourse to in an earlier age. Our interpreters and commentators have not been able to come out of it yet. Otherwise, the internal evidence contained in the Qur’an is enough to dismiss these fabricated accounts out of hand.

The Qur’an asserts in clear terms –  انه لكتاب عزيز لاياتيه الباطل من بين يد يه ولا من خلفه تنزيل من حكيم حميد … (Fussilat: 42). It is not an ordinary book but the “Dearest Book” (kitab al-azeez). Nothing wrong can enter it either from the front or from behind. This is because it is revealed by Allah, the Judge (hakeem) and the Most Praised (hameed). Its protection is guaranteed by Him in unambiguous words – اناله لحافظون. He reassures His Prophet thus: وتمت كلمة ربك صدقا وعدلا لا مبدل لكلماته… (Al In’am: 115), i.e., “This Text of your Lord is so completely just and true that no one can effect any change in it. The Prophet himself took utmost precaution to preserve it both through written and verbal means. As the Qur’an states: بل هو قرأن مجيد فى لوح محفوظ …. (85/21-22); at another place the written Qur’an has been alluded to as كتاب مسطورفى رق منشور (Al Tur:2-3). Besides this, scholars had preserved it in their memory. بل هو أيات بينت فى صدور الذين أوتوالعلم (Al Ankaboot: 49). It cannot be imagined that a text about which all kinds of precautions – verbal and written – were undertaken, should face a crisis because a man who memorized it died in the battle of Imama. This is beside the fact that, historically, apart from Salim Maula Abu Huzaifa, one finds the name of no other known reciters/ scholars of the Qur’an (qurra) in the list of martyrs who died in the battle of Imama. For the Prophet, preservation of Divine Revelation was one of the most important and delicate tasks. He could not have put up with any kind of laxity and lack of rigour in this task. This is also because the Qur’an termed the earlier divine texts as distorted, and the Qur’an itself contained references to the distortion in language and meaning with reference to the Israelites: يحرفون الكلم عن مواضعه and يكتبون الكتاب بايديهم And it is a historical truth that the Prophet and his Companions were very careful about protecting the Qur’an from such intrusions. Allah Himself appreciates the way the Prophet safeguarded the Qur’an as كتاب مسطور فى رق منشور (Al Tur:2-3), in the Qur’an as follows: فى صحف مكرمة مرفوعة مطهرة بايدى سفرة كرام بررة … (Abasa: 13). This Text was being written down by those who were men of piety, and were worthy of respect and honour. In other words, those who had the honour to memorise and copy it were not ordinary people who would be lax or who would exercise lack of caution while copying down the word of Allah. Rather, Allah Himself vouches for their honesty and integrity. Despite the presence of such crystal clear verses, if our commentators take these copyists of the Divine Revelation to be angels who, according to them, copied it sitting in some baitul muazzam, the basic reason for such interpretations is that these interpreters are not ready to come out of the mythical world created by traditions, and read the text of the Qur’an as an independent corpus of knowledge. Right from Tabari down to the modern commentators such as Abul Ala Maududi, all take the copyists of the Qur’anic Text to be angels, and in their translations add ‘angels’ in parenthesis, that lifts the whole scenario from the Prophet’s time to a world of which we have no idea, and we feel constrained to approach the commentators for any details that we want to know about that world. A similar scenario obtains in the case of laohe mahfooz as well which we have dealt with in the earlier chapters. It is amazing how this text within two covers (raqqim manshoor) has been transported into another world through the imaginative flights of our commentators, a world where the Qur’an was indeed being written down, but we cannot have any access to it.

Even a man of ordinary intelligence could have asked the question that if the the Qur’anic Text did not exist in the Prophet’s time, then how was the verse – رسول من الله يتلو صحفا مطهرة فيها كتب قيمة . (Al Bayyinah: 2) read and understood by the people? If the Prophet did not have the sacred Text with him, then how did he read out from it? And a text for which it was said that there are innumerable laws written in it. However, those who considered the Prophet illiterate, who insisted that he had nothing to do with reading and writing,[2] that “ امى” (as he was called) meant illiterate, for them it is not sifficult to believe in such fanciful accounts, despite clear indications to the contrary. For them, it is enough that these accounts are found in reliable books of traditions and the exegetes have made them a subject of their debate. Those who study the Qur’an with open eyes soon realize not only the true nature of the promise made in the verse – اناله لحافظون. Soo, it also becomes a part of their belief that beside safeguarding the protection of the Qur’anic Text through both written and oral means, the process of compiling and organizing the text was also divinely undertaken. As Allah says in the Qur’an: انا علينا جمعه وقرأنه … (Al Qiyamah: 17). Like the older divine texts, the job of safeguarding the Qur’an was not left to scholars and community leaders. In the Qur’an there are clear suggestions that despite their best efforts, the scholars and leaders of the Israelites did not succeed in protecting the Torah. والربنيون والاحبار بما استحفظوا من كتب الله وكانوا عليه شهداء … (Al Maeda: 44). That is why Allah took upon Himself the responsibility of protecting the last Divine Revelation. He gave it to the Prophet of the علم بالقلم fame and revealed it to a society that had a tradition of reading and writing. Well, Divine Revelation is a noble thing. The Qur’an exhorts the believers to write down even the mundane transactions of everyday life[3]. There is enough internal evidence in the Qur’an that refers to the society at Madina as one that had a culture of books and pen and that mentions the Qur’an as a definitive book in that society. It is surprising that those who take the book alluded to in the entire verse – فلا اقسم بمواقع النجوم وانه لقسم لو تعلمون عظيم انه لقرأن كريم فى كتاب مكنون لايمسه الا المطهرون تنزيل من رب العالمين … (Al Waqeah: 75-80) to be the book, which is protected in the distant skies, should think that the Qur’anic commandment of لايمسه الاالمطهرون should be valid for the people on the earth. If this book is protected in another world, how does the question of laying hands on it here arise, for which the condition of purity was laid down? But as the exegetes are accustomed to transport all such verses to another world, even this internal evidence contained in the Qur’an cannot release them from the stranglehold of fabricated accounts. There is such a strong hold of the earlier exegetes, particularly Tabari, on the Islamic interpretive literature (tafsiri adab) that apparently all those comments written with the objective of creating an alternative perspective to Tabari, eventually turned out to be only an extension of the same intellectual flights taken recourse to by Tabari. We have become so accustomed to depend on the interpretive literature that we ignore the internal evidence contained in the Qur’an and cannot muster up enough courage to dismiss the role of human endeavours in compiling and organizing a definitive and divinely executed text like the Qur’an. Truly speaking, the books of interpretive literature and traditions have weakened our faith (iman) to a considerable extent.

We have already alluded to the view expressed by Hafiz Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani that the Qur’an had not been compiled during the Prophet’s lifetime, that the verses were scattered here and there, that the chapters (surah) were not organised etc.; all these, according to him, were done later by the Prophet’s Companions according to their best judgement. Of course, he is not alone in expressing this view about the Qur’anic Text. A large number of renowned scholars of traditions and exegetes have shown themselves to be victims of such misconceptions about the final Divine Text. It is a commonly held belief that the organization of the surahs was not divinely executed, but was done by the Prophet’s companions according to their best understanding of them (the verses) in the overall scheme of the Qur’an. There is no dearth of such traditions also that extend this idea even to the arrangement of verses within a surah. For instance, the following objection raised by Ibn Abbas found place in many reliable traditions: he had asked Othman why Surah “Al Infal” and “Barah” were not separated by “Bismillah”, and why instead they were incorporated into “the seven big surahs”, Othman’s reported reply was – as there was similarity in the theme of “Al Infal”. Surah Barah was revealed last of all, and the Prophet died before making any statement about it. That is why I thought Barah is just a part of “Infal” and did not have “Bismillah” written between them”.[4] (Surah Barah, also called alTaubah, is next to Surah Al-Infal. As Barah is the only chapter that starts without a bismilla, which also is taken asa separator. The two suras, if taken together - because of the absence of aseparator bismilla- ranks among the seven long suras of the Quran. The idea that Quran has seven long suras occurred important to those who attach special significance to number seven. However, there is no such scheme or implication in the text. In this surah if the bismilla is missing in the beginning perhaps because this surah has bismillah in the text inside It is said that when Khusaima bin Sabit Ansari presented the verse – لقد جاء كم رسول من انفسكم … (Al Tauba: 128) and Othman stood witness to it, the problem arose as to where to place it. Placing it at the end of surah Barah was also said to be the result of the judgement of the Prophet’s Companions.[5] Such traditions placed Othman on a much higher pedestal, from the simple compiler of the Qur’anic Text to an editor or adjudicator. Because of the presence of such unreliable accounts in the genuine books of traditions this Divine Text came to be regarded as an Othmanic text, and the status of Othman as the compiler of the Qur’an became a part of the belief and knowledge of the majority of Muslims.

When any credence is given to the fact that the human mind/intelligence had any role to play in the organization and compilation of the Divine Text, then naturally a question arises as to why the Divine Text should not be found out in its pristine form, so that the dilution and distortion that may have occurred to it through human intervention is discounted and access is gained to the authentic Divine Word. In reliable books of the Qur’anic knowledge, evidence of efforts to pin down the exact timing of the revelation of each surah can be found. What should be the proper arrangement for them according to the chronology of revelation? Reservations were also expressed about the mixing of verses revealed at Mecca and Madina in the same surah, and it was suggested that unless the verses are arranged chronologically (rather than thematically), it would lead to grave complexities in the understanding of Divine Revelation. Scholars of traditions and exegetes have made their own listing of the surahs according to their time and place of revelation for a new organization of the Qur’an. There were serious disagreements among them about the exact chronology and placement of the surahs. The list prepared by Ibn Nadeem and Itqan created a situation whereby people were ready with their own manuscripts of the Qur’anic Text, which they arranged on the basis of various traditions. As each group had a set of traditions to offer in support of its view, it was not possible to either accept or reject any version solely on the basis of such traditions. Sometimes, differing and conflicting versions of the same tradition was attributed to the same transmitter. The belief that the Qur’an was the complete, final and unadulterated version of the Word of God died a natural death under the weight of such traditions.

It is claimed that the current version of the Qur’an is different from the version available at the time of the Prophet. It is certainly true about the arrangement of the text, if not the text itself. Even those who opposed this propaganda ultimately accepted the fact that the Prophet organised some surahs and the rest of the surahs were arranged by his Companions. Imam Malik, Qazi Abu Bakr and Ibn Farsi were said to be of this view.[6]  Different versions were attributed to Ali, Abdullah bin Masu’d, Abi bin Ka’b, Abdullah bin Abbas and Muhammad bin Noman bin Basheer.[7] It had been said repeatedly about Ali and Abdullah bin Masu’d that even after the Othmanic version was completed, these gentlemen held on to their own versions and instructed their disciples to read the Qur’an in their versions. Tabari made a special mention of the fact that in the version prepared by Ibn Masu’d, Surah Yunus figured at no. 10. Ibn Nadeem’s Al-Firhist where one cannot find the listing of  Ali’s version of the Qur’anic Text, draws attention to the fact that among the different versions prepared by Ibn Masu’d there were no two versions that were perfectly identical[8] in their principle of organization. This sort of irresponsible statements about the Divine Word engendered doubts in the mind of even knowledgeable people about the definitiveness of the Qur’anic Text. As our attitude towards history was more reverential than critical, we accepted hl accounts and traditions as essential tools in our understanding of an absolute entity like Divine Revelation. Once these anti-Qur’anic views sneaked into reliable books of traditions and exegesis, later generations found it difficult to get rid of them. They had just one option open to them to prove the weakness of such traditions, and that was to search out the comparatively unreliable transmitters. But in an environment where hundreds of hypocrites (munafiq) in the guise of scholars of traditions were propagating false information day and night, it was not difficult for a few to circumvent such a critical scrutiny (of identifying false transmitters). That is why this process of scrutiny and evaluation, despite being objective and scientific to a great degree, could not establish high standard of intuitive knowledge (darayat). The veracity of this can be established if we undertake a comparative study of the Book of Tas’a (Kutb-e Tas’a). Even if Imam Muslim has been successful in keeping the fabricated traditions regarding the compilation of the Qur’an at arm’s length, they have made their way into Bukhari, Tirmizi, and other books through different means.