THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN

Muslims proudly boast that the Quran is the best preserved of all revelations and that
the Bible, with its many versions, many errors and many contradictions is corrupted
beyond all recognition. Some say that the Quran was compiled within the lifetime of
Muhammad. Others say that the prophet’s recitations were entrusted to hundreds of
eidetic-minded companions, who guarded the Quran from all error until it was written
down. However, it is interesting to note that these opinions are not supported by the
most treasured and trusted sources of Islamic history; that is, the hadith historians do
not at all support the popular idea of the word-perfect transmission of the Quran. Any
person, with only a little knowledge or Islamic history, will come to understand that
these common notions are, at best, wishful thinking and, at worst, careless or deceptive.
I have, therefore, endeavoured to report, in a more concise form, the research of others
on this topic – the only thing that I have to add to this is my relentlessly logical,
philosophical perspective. I hope that this will be a useful starting point for those who
wish to research this topic further. (This essay is more or less a regurgitation of a work
John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an - The Codification of the Qur'an Text, available online.)

THE OFFICIAL UNOFFICIAL VERSION

After the death of Muhammad the Quran lay scattered in people's memories and
written down, here and there, on odds and ends. At that moment, no matter how
thoroughly memorised it was, there arose a need to gather these recitations into a
single, authoritative volume, to protect and preserve the revelation and to settle any
future disputes as to which reading of the Quran was correct. I imagine that many
people undertook this task, of their own initiative, for their own purposes, or for general
consumption; in a very informal way or in an official capacity. However, the ultimate,
tragic catalyst, which led to the compilation of the Quran as we know it, was the Battle
of Yamama, wherein many prominent memorisers (huffas) died, reminding everyone
that human memory is not fool proof, especially when that fool is waving a sword. Thus,
Abu Bakr, the first caliphate of the young Islamic nation, requested the compilation of
the Quran, by the trusted scholar Zaid Bin Thabit.

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had
been killed. Then Abu Bakr 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 (saw).
So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an 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 Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will
you do something which Allah's Apostle (saw) did not do?" Abu Bakr replied "By Allah, it is a
good project". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477). (Emphasis mine.)

Notice, here, (1) that Zaid was ordered to, “search,” (2) the great reluctance of Zaid
expressed in his hyperbolic description of the task and (3) the clear statement that
Muhammad had not compiled the Quran into a single volume. Thus, we see that the
popular notions of the Quran being compiled within Mohammed's lifetime, or of many
companions memorising the entire Quran, are not in keeping with history: if many
people knew the entire text of the Quran, the task of the compilation of the Quran

irrefutable.refutation@gmail.com
1
would not be, “heavier than shifting a mountain”; it would be a simple matter of
dictation. Similarly, if the Quran, were already compiled somewhere, such as
Muhammad's household (as some suggest) then Zaid would not have been ordered to,
“search,” and Zaid would not have described as such a heavy undertaking. (Early hadith
literature confirms this fact.1)

THE BATTLE OF YAMAMA

As an aside, it is interesting to consider, the indications of the Battle of Yamama, as
recorded in the following hadith:

Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on
the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were
they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an,
nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif,
p.23). (Emphasis mine.)

Thus, we observe that a section of the Quran – the final verbatim revelation, from God
to man – was lost, once and for all, at this tragic battle. To minimise the damage of this
hadith, Muslim apologists will argue, that it was within God plan, that certain verses
would not be codified in the final version of the Quran. However, it is nevertheless true,
that unique portions of God's Word -- portions not in the current Quran -- were lost on
the day and the damage of that is difficult to minimise. For, either God disposed of
verses, which deserved to be thrown away, or he threw away verses that didn’t deserve
to be thrown away. Thus, on the one hand, God issued revelations that were disposable
in content, and, on the other hand, God destroyed extremely valuable verses. Neither
option makes sense. It is more likely that God isn’t behind this revelation whatsoever.
Were I a Muslim – which I am not – I would have trouble with this incident in Islam’s
early history.

SHELVED
Once Zaid had completed his task, his monumental effort was shelved, for personal use,
or else to gather dust. (It was not, for instance, distributed to the general populace, for
general acceptance.) From there, it was handed down – in relative obscurity – from one
caliphate to the next (from Abu Bakr to Umar) and thereafter to the daughter of Umar,
Hafsa, as we read in the following hadith: “Then the complete manuscript (copy) of the
Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with Umar, till the end of his life, and
then with Hafsa, the daughter of Umar (ra). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).” The fact
that this version was requested by the caliphate, and executed by such a great and
trusted scholar, makes this an extremely important, reliable text. It is, therefore,
especially perplexing that this version was not released for public consumption, to be
checked by other memorisers and read by the people. One might kindly regard this
sheltering as a protective gesture, yet there is nothing to suggest that copying and
1
So I started looking for the Qur'an 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 suraht at-
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). This tradition emphasises the search for and collection of the Quran,
that it was gathered from different men and that the last verse was not found in Muhammad’s
household. Thus, it was not simply found with the memorisers or with Muhammad’s household.

irrefutable.refutation@gmail.com
2
distributing the text would do some unexplained harm, from which the text needed
protection. This interim obscurity is best explained by the fact that neither Zaid, nor Abu
Bakr, nor Umar saw this version as the final definitive version, the book to end all books,
the one and only Quran as we know it.

BOOK BURNING
The next great catalyst for the standardisation of the Quran came also from military
origins, but this time from squabbling soldiers rather than a bloody battlefield. A certain
general led an expedition into Syria, drawing on troops from Syria and Iraq. As it
happened, the Syrian soldiers had a different reading to the Iraqi soldiers (the former
following the text of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and the latter the text of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud.) The
general, as astute as generals ought to be, saw a potential problem on the horizon, and
took the matter to Uthman, the successor to Umar.

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

If Uthman chose the Iraqi version over the Syrian version, or vice versa, he would start a
war instead of ending it: both parties knew their competition, to some extent, and might
have had reasons for choosing the one version over the other; neither party would take
kindly to having the others’ version forced on them. Thus, to settle the dispute, Uthman
chose an independent, unknown version, which both parties highly regarded, but which
neither party could object to, because it was unknown to them. It was a shrewd,
expedient, political move, which angered and placated both parties equally, but at least
there was no winner or loser. However, given the choice, neither party would give up
their version willingly. Thus Uthman would have to take what the people would not give
up willingly and destroy it. Both versions were loose ends that Uthman needed to tie up.

Thus arose the sinister book-burning bonfires of Uthman (who I daresay has a fairly
villainous-sounding name.) The mere mention of book-burning gives the Western mind
chills, but it poses an even greater challenge to the Islamic mind: the mere fact that
Uthman felt the need to burn other versions, suggests that the differences between
different versions (all three versions) were significant. (It also suggests that these
variants were dear to people and would not be given up willingly.) Thus, once again, the
notion of one incorruptible version, compiled within Mohammed's lifetime, or of many
word-perfect copies indelibly etched on the minds of memorisers, evaporates as a
fiction. If these variants existed today, we know the extent of these differences, but, as it

irrefutable.refutation@gmail.com
3
is, the metaphorical smoke of burning books hangs ominously, obscuring this crucial
event in Islamic history.

ABDULLA IBN MAS’UD

Needless to say that Abdulla Ibn Mas’ud, the editor (for want of a better word) of the
Iraqi codex, was quite irate at the prospect of all his hard work going up in smoke, and
he had good reason to be. Mas’ud came with the highest prophetic endorsements.
Muhammad himself related that Mas’ud was the best-of-the-best to learn the Quran
from.2 Thus, we must infer that Mas’ud was the most reliable of all the memorisers, and
ten-to-one would have compiled a better Quran than anyone else. (Zaid was not even
mentioned in Muhammad’s top-four list.) Mas’ud himself boldly asserted his own
expertise.3 Mas’ud even scathingly remarked that he had recited seventy surahs
perfectly before Zaid had even converted to Islam. 4,5,6 Thus, we see that the source of
Mas’ud’s anger was not a matter of slight variations of intonation and vocalisation – as
some would have us believe – it was a matter of authority and qualifications. Mas’ud
believed that he was the best man for the job – and arguably Muhammad also believed
that he was the best man for the job – yet his work was consigned to the flames.

THE VARIATIONS
Fortunately we are not in the dark with regards to all the variations between Zaid and
Mas’ud’s texts, since historians recorded many of these variations. The first, which is
more like a rumour, (a possibly true rumour) is that Mas’ud omitted three surahs of the
Quran. This fact was confirmed and denied by certain early commentators. Further than
that, Gilchrist (the author whose work I am recapitulating) points out that the historian,
Ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitab al-Masahif, dedicates a full nineteen pages to variations
between the two texts, and that no fewer than a hundred differences are found in the
surahtul-Baqarah hadith alone. To give you some idea of these differences, some
examples will suffice:
• While Zaid’s version reads, "those who devour usury will not stand". Ibn Mas'ud's
text adds, they couldn’t stand on the, "Day of Resurrection". (2:275)

2
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 (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an 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". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96)
3
“Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) (ra): By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be
worshipped! There is no surah 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,
4
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had
perfected before Zaid ibn Thabit had embraced Islam". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.17).
5
"I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish
youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah?" (Ibn Abi Dawud,
Kitab al-Masahif, p.15).
6
"The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according
to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn 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 Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth".
(Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444).

irrefutable.refutation@gmail.com
4
 • Zaid’s version reads, "Fast for three days". Mas’ud’s read, "Fast for three
successive days". (5:91)
• Zaid’s version reads, "Verily this is my path". Masud’s read, "This is the path of
Your Lord". (6:153)
• Zaid’s version reads, "and his wives are their mothers". Mas'ud's text added,
"and he is their father". (33:6)7
Many of the differences were slight differences in pronunciation or the form of a word.
Some differences were slight variations that altered the meaning of a word and in some
cases words were added which didn’t affect the meaning of the text. However, the point
is merely that (1) these differences were not just differences of pronunciation – as some
people claim – and (2) the Quran might not be the word-perfect record that some
people make it out to be. Gilchrist goes on to mention that, the extent of the differences
between Zaid’s version and all other codices (not just Mas’ud’s) was so great that they,
“fill up no less than three hundred and fifty pages of Jeffery's Materials for the History of
the Text of the Qur'an […] one can understand why the others [other versions] were
ordered to be destroyed.”

UBAYY IBN KA’B

Meanwhile, to add insult to injury, the Syrian codex, collected by Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, also
had an uncanny habit of agreeing more with Mas’ud’s text than Zaid’s 8 and, once again,
to aggravate the situation further, Ibn Ka’b came with pre-eminent recommendations
from the prophet, who called him “the best reader” 9 out of everyone. (Gilchrist
mentions a few differences, for instance, that Zaid’s version reads, "And We inscribed
therein for them (the Jews)." Ubayy’s version reads, "And Allah sent down therein to the
Children of Israel." (5:48)) In the hadith of Abu Ubaid we read that that, while Zaid’s
version reads, “amarnaa mutrafiihaa fafasaquu” Ubayy’s version read, “ba'athnaa
akaabira mujri-miihaa fdmakaruu.”10 In addition, interestingly enough, while Mas’ud’s
text was said to have omitted to surahs, Ubayy’s text is said to have included two more,
The Haste and The Separation. (The full texts are recorded in the source.) 11 Thus, again,
history does not present us with one verbatim Word of God, but with multiple texts
(some more legitimate than others) and many discrepancies, and not just errors of
pronunciation but many meaning-altering textual variations also.

7
These differences are from various traditions noted by Nöldeke and Jeffery in John Gilchrist Jam' Al-
Qur'an - The Codification of the Qur'an Text
8
The following are examples of where Ubayy agreed with Mas’ud differed from Zaid:
1. For the standard reading wa yush-hidullaaha in surah 2.204 he read wa yastash-hidullaaha (cf.
Nöldeke 3.83; Jeffery, p.120).
2. He omitted the words in khiftum from surah 4.101 (cf. Nöldeke 3.85; Jeffery, p.127).
3. He read mutathab-thibiina for muthabthabiina in surah 4.143 (cf. Jeffery, p.127).
(From John Gilchrist Jam' Al-Qur'an - The Codification of the Qur'an Text.)
9
Affan ibn Muslim informed us ... on the authority of Anas ibn Malik, he on the authority of the
Prophet, may Allah bless him; he said: The best reader (of the Qur'an) among my people is Ubayyi ibn
Ka'b. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.441).
10
Nöldeke 3.88; Jeffery, p.140. 17.16 in John Gilchrist Jam' Al-Qur'an - The Codification of the Qur'an
Text
11
As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.152-153 in John Gilchrist Jam' Al-Qur'an - The Codification of the Qur'an Text

irrefutable.refutation@gmail.com
5
THE MUSLIM REACTION
The Muslim might react to these facts in many ways. The usual tactic (in any religion) is
to minimise and rationalise these findings until one forgets or grows accustomed to
them. However, there is some danger in denying these things altogether. To deny these
facts is to attack the reliability of trusted hadith traditions, which is really to attack Islam
itself. This might not seem like a problem, however, one must remember that the
Muslim relies on these hadith traditions for the interpretations of certain crucial verses
(such as the verses which suggest that all Muslims will go to hell. 12) Thus, the Muslim is
in a catch-22 situation: either they must accept that the Quran is not word-perfect or
they must reject certain hadith traditions, which they rely on heavily, especially to iron
out certain controversial verses. On the other hand, the Muslim might desire to reject
only certain parts of hadith traditions, as they sometimes do with certain other
documents. However, this would be an essentially dishonest (or at the very least
inconsistent) undertaking, to ignore the evidence that doesn’t suite them, to protect a
theory not supported by any evidence. Now, faith might sometimes be acceptable, in
the absence of evidence (although I would not recommend it). However, it is quite a
different thing to believe in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary. That is not a
step of faith but a step of insanity. However, we will consider this step further in the
next paragraph. Naturally, it is impossible to fully anticipate the Muslims reaction,
however, I anticipate that any response to this essay will lack any and all historical
references or will involve a blatant misuse of early hadith traditions.)

STARTING ASSUMPTIONS
One might do well to ask, in view of all this, on what basis the Muslim does believe in the
word-perfect transmission of the Quran at all? The short answer is that they do not
believe because of historical evidence but for certain other reasons. First, the Muslim
must, for obvious reasons, believe in the word-perfect transmission of the Quran: to
prove that the Quran is reliable and authentic, they must (at bare minimum) prove that
it is the exact Word of God; a little error creates a lot of doubt, and it stands to reason
that God would protect his final revelation from both error and doubt. (This fact led me
to formulate the rule of doubt, a short statement of which, I have included below.)

THE RULE OF DOUBT: The more reasonable doubt that surrounds a faith, the less likely
it is that the faith is true, and the relationship is hyperbolic; that is, the likelihood of
the faith being false increases exponentially as reasonable doubt increases. The true
God would not allow his true religion to be overwhelmed by uncertainty and
reasonable doubt. A little reasonable doubt may be permissible, but as doubt
increases, the likelihood of truth drops off suddenly, particularly if this is regarding a
crucial part of the reliability of the faith, such as the early history of the faith, or, in this
case, the history of the compilation of the Quran. Any reasonable doubt surrounding a
true faith should evaporate on closer inspection, but the reasonable doubt
surrounding a false faith should only increase.

12
(There will be no one of you who will not enter it (Hell). This was an inevitable decree of your Lord.
Afterwards he may save some of the pious, God-fearing Muslims out of the burning fire.” 19.71-72

irrefutable.refutation@gmail.com
6
Thus, the Quran must be perfect, or else it is not from God, in which case a quarter of
the world is in the wrong religion. Thus, for Muslims to remain Muslim, they must
believe in spite of all the historical evidence or they must discredit the historical
evidence or they must invent new evidence. Second, the Muslim believes they have
many ironclad reasons for believing in the Quran’s divinity: the inimitability of the
Quran, the mathematical miracle of the Quran, the scientific/medical miracle, etc. Thus,
for several reasons, the Quran must be divine and, therefore, anything that contradicts it
must be false and everything that supports it is probably true. Thus, the Muslim goes
back over history, accepting what he likes and ignoring what he doesn’t. (I might
mention that this is not the only time that the Muslim does this.) Yet, we must caution –
according to the rule of doubt (stated above) that no possible proofs can override the
mounting evidence, from reliable (internal) sources, concerning the reliability of the
Quranic text (or lack thereof). God would never allow the history of the compilation of
the Quran to be so completely corrupted. It is far more likely that God is not the
protector of this revelation.

CONCLUSION
In short, the Quran as we know it, was one of a handful of versions, some of which
where written by more qualified persons, and there were many (mostly small) variations
between the versions, but that the other versions were burnt, by a sinister caliphate –
who enjoyed no especial qualifications – for no especial reason, except expediency. The
impression one gets, overall, is that the surahs are mostly right – plus or minus one or
two surahs – the order is mostly right – give or take a few changes -- the titles are mostly
right – except for the ones Muhammad didn’t name – the wording is mostly right – plus
or minus a few phrases and clauses – and beyond that there are the hundreds of (really
very tiny) variations that don’t really affect the meaning at all. And all these variations –
in one variant codex or another -- are recorded, partly in this tradition and partly in that.
Thus, we have a scenario of errors on every level, some possible and others probably,
most of which we know about, but quite possibly many we don’t. Then there are the
verses that were abrogated (a troubling notion, in itself): some improvements possibly
lost, some abrogated verses possibly included, and perhaps some improvements and
abrogations side-by-side in the Quran. If we knew the extent of the variations, and
abrogations, we might be able to put our minds at ease, yet when there are so many
unknown variables flying about, we do not know whether it is a swarm or a plague. And
really, the sheer amount of small errors, must inevitably add up to something significant,
just as many tiny termites (insignificant on their own) might eventually make the entire
house crumble. The best that can be said of the Quran that we have come to know, I
should think, is that it is, “almost nearly entirely as good as the best versions,” or that it
is, “mostly, probably not all that different from the verbatim Word of God,” although,
there is still much doubt and uncertainty leftover from bloody battles, bickering soldiers,
flaming books, buzzing gnats and the like. In a word, the history of the Quran is, well,
infested. And if the rule of reasonable doubt is in any way true – that is, if the likelihood
of falsehood increases drastically as reasonable doubt increases normally – then we
cannot accept this revelation as even slightly divine.

irrefutable.refutation@gmail.com
7