Appendix II The Codex Masudensis

1 S. Z. Chowdhury MA – Qur’an: Orality and Textuality Term 3 – 2009. Appendix II The Codex Masudensis Much has been made of an alleged codex of Ibn Mascūd. It is said to be ‘preUthmānic’ and a rival version to his codex. Many arguments are advanced by Orientalist scholars that argue for the rivalry of Ibn Mascūd’s codex to the cUthmānic model Codex. For example: c Argument 1: P1. There are continuous links of transmission establishing a codex attributed to Ibn Mascūd. P2. There are reports to suggest that his codex was never really superseded such as: 1. The fact that Ibn Mascūd was present when the revelation was recited for the last time before the Prophet and obtained knowledge of abrogated verses as well as any amendments.1 2. The fact that Ibn Mascūd’s codex contained the “final recital”.2 3. The Fact that Ibn Mascūd’s codex was explicitly endorsed as being the correct one by the Prophet.3 1 See Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Mu annaf, vol.7, p.204: ‫ﺎن‬ ‫آﱢر‬ ‫آﺎن ْﺮض ا ْ ﺮْﺁن‬ ‫و‬ ‫ن ر ﻮل اﷲ ﺻ ﻰ اﷲ‬ ‫ أ ﱠ‬، ‫ﱠﺎس‬ ‫ْﺮة ْﺪ اﷲ ﺸﻬﺪ ﺎ‬ .‫ و ﺎ ﺪﱢل‬، ْ See A mad Ibn vol.2, p.250: ‫إ ﺮاه‬ ‫ﻮ ﻰ أ ﺄ إ ﺮا‬ ‫إن ر ﻮل اﷲ ﺻ ﻰ اﷲ‬ ‫ﻮد‬ ‫ﺮاءة‬ ، ‫ﻇ ْ ﺎن‬ ‫ْأ‬ ْ ‫ﱠﺮ‬ ‫ﺮض‬ ْ ، ‫اﻷ ْ ﺶ‬ ، ‫ﺎو ﺔ‬ ‫ﺈﱠ‬ ‫ﺪﱠﺛ ﺎ أ ﻮ‬ ‫ﱠﺮ ًة إ ﱠ ا ْ ﺎم اﱠﺬي‬ anbal, al-Musnad, vol.1, p.362; al- ākim al-Naysabūrī, al-Mustadrak calā ’l- aḥīḥayn, 2 ‫ﻬﺎ ﺮ‬ ْ‫ا‬ ‫ﻜﺎ‬ ‫ﺪ اﷲ‬ ‫ﻮد ﺪﺛ ﺎ‬ ‫ﺪ‬ ‫ﺮون آﺎن ﺁ ﺮ ا ﺮاءة ﺎ ﻮا ﺮاءة ز ﺪ ﺎل‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻬﺎ ﺮ‬ ‫ﺔا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ﺪﺛ ﺎ‬ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﻬ ﺎ ﺎل أي ا ﺮاء‬ ‫ﺎ آﺎ‬ ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫أ ﺪا‬ ‫ﺪ‬ ‫أ ﺮ ﺎ أ ﻮ ا ﺎس‬ ‫ﺎس ر ﻰ اﷲ ﺎ ﻰ‬ ‫ﻰ‬ ‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﺎهﺪ‬ ‫آﺎن ﺮض ا ﺮﺁن آ‬ ‫و‬ ... ‫ﺁ ﺮه‬ 3 See Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Mu annaf, vol.7, p.18. and Abū cUbayd, Faḍā’il al-Qur’ān, vol.2, p.209: ‫ن ْﺮأ‬ ْ ‫ْ ﺮﱠ أ‬ : ‫و‬ ‫ ﺎل ر ﻮل اﷲ ﺻ ﻰ اﷲ‬: ‫ ﺎل‬، ‫ْﺮو‬ ْ ،‫ْ ﺔ‬ ، ‫ْ إ ْﺮاه‬ ، ‫اﻷ ْ ﺶ‬ .‫ﻰ ﺮاءة ا ْ أمﱢ ْﺪ‬ ، ‫ﺎو ﺔ‬ ‫ﺪﱠﺛ ﺎ أ ﻮ‬ ‫ا ْ ﺮْﺁن ر ْ ًﺎ آ ﺎ أ ْﺰل ْ ْﺮ ْأ‬ 2 ________ C1. Therefore, Ibn Mascūd’s codex is either: a) THE actual revelatory codex, i.e. the Qur’ān itself or b) a rival orthodox codex to the cUthmānic one.4 Argument 2: P1. Ibn Mascūd was more mature and fit for being the compiler/redactor of the Qur’ān over Zayd b. Thābit who is dismissed as a “Jewish boy with two sidelocks”.5 P2. Ibn Mascūd had unimpeachable moral character and memory integrity. He was also a qualified legal expert. P3. Zayd b. Thābit’s edition of what became the cUthmānic codex was explicitly rejected by Ibn Mascūd.6 P4. People still insisted on using the reading/version of Ibn Mascūd. ________ C2. Therefore, cUthmān’s codex was opposed as being orthodox.7 Thus from these reports retrieved from traditional Muslim historical sources, Orientalist scholars argue that these narrations cast utter doubt upon the reliability of the c Uthmānic codex as the definitive expression of revelation as Ibn Mascūd’s rejection of Zayd suggests the latter’s redaction is an incomplete one.8 Some points: • The traditional account does not attribute any codex to Ibn Mascūd, i.e. a collection of papers, sheets or parchments into a concluded volume as suggested by sceptical positions. 4 A. Shnizer, “Sacrality and Collection” in The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’ān, ed. by A. Rippin, pp.166-167 and J. Burton, The Collection of the Qur’ān, p.195. 5 I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen der Islamichen Koranauslegung, p10; A. Jefferey, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’ān, p.20 and M. Lecker, “Zayd b. Thābit, a Jew with Two Sidelocks: Judaism and Literacy in Pre-Islamic Medina”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 56, pp.259-273. 6 See A mad Ibn anbal, al-Musnad, vol.1, p.411: …‫ﺎن‬ 7 8 ‫ا‬ ‫ذؤا ﺎن‬ ‫م‬ ‫ﺛﺎ‬ ‫ﻮرة وز ﺪ‬ ‫ﺎو‬ ‫و‬ ‫ر ﻮل اﷲ ﺻ ﻰ اﷲ‬ Shnizer, “Sacrality and Collection”, p.167 and Burton, The Collection of the Qur’ān, p.193. Shnizer, “Sacrality and Collection”, pp.167-168. ‫ﺪ أ ﺬت‬ 3 • • The attributions to Ibn Mascūd are instead termed “readings” (qirā’a / ‫ ) ﺮا ـﺔ‬in the literature.9 Hence, the praise poured on Ibn Mascūd is regarding his reading or his version of recitation thus being sanctioned by the Prophet. However, he is not the only one as other Companions and their readings were also sanctioned. Much of the variant recitations or variations that extremely diverge from the c Uthmānic codex alleged to be from Ibn Mascūd are actually spurious (or at least without isnād [‫)]إ ـﺎد‬: Readings of Ibn Mascūd No identifiable transmitters. X Y Z ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No identifiable transmitters. A B C Ibn Mascūd • • Therefore, it would fallacious to employ unaccountable and unidentifiable reports to negate established reports.10 A number of aspects related to Ibn Mascūd and reports surrounding his codex that have been discussed include: 1. Arrangement: It is not altogether clear what arrangement of chapters (sūras / ‫ ) ﻮرة‬is found in his codex due to the entirely conflicting reports about it as well as the extreme discrepancies in differing versions of his codex others have commented on.11 > thus, there is not certainty about either the nature, configuration or chronology of his supposed codex. 2. Authenticity: Much of the variant readings attributed to Ibn Mascūd are through a Shicite transmitter.12 > most are sourced through al-Acmash (d. 148) who does not furnish any proof for his versions being disparaged on two accounts by ḥadīth experts: a) for having a proclivity for tadlīs (‘concealing sources of information’) and b) for having sectarian Shicite tendencies.13 9 See the Arabic texts to fn. 1-3. Cf. Jefferey, Two Muqaddimas to the Qur’ānic Sciences, pp.47-48. 11 Such as Ibn al-Nadīm in his al-Fihrist, p.29. 12 See Abū ’l- ayyān al-Na awī, Tafsīr Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, vol.1, p.161. 13 See for example al-Mizzī’s evaluations in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol.9, pp.87-92. One of the variants (for which see Jefferey, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’ān, p.97) attributed to Ibn Mascūd reads: 10 4 3. Omission: Ibn Mascūd allegedly omitting 3 sūras from the Qur’ān (no. 1, 113 and 114) not considering them part of the original. > this would suggest that Ibn Mascūd’s denial of these as part of the orthodox canon would have been met with opposition and cries of heresy as sūra 1 is necessary for prayer and other devotional matters; but no such reports of censure exists.14 > Provided the reports (riwāyāt / ‫ )روا ﺎت‬are in any way established as true and authenticated,15 there could be a number of reasons why these 3 sūras are omitted from Ibn Mascūd’s codex such as: • • • • These were common sūras memorised by all – children and adults alike and hence no need to mention it.16 He wanted to only write what he directly heard form the Prophet.17 He may not have initially thought they were sūras but later believed them to be so. There may have been an error on his part. Conclusions: • • • There does not exist an actual codex in the name of Ibn Mascūd. Ibn Mascūd read the Qur’ān in accordance with the cUthmānic skeleton. Reports in most part that attribute divergences to Ibn Mascūd are not sustainable on grounds of historical and evidential evaluations. And the foremost to believe in the Prophet – upon him be peace – are cAlī and his descendants whom God has chosen from among his companions appointing them viceroys over all others. They are the successful ones who shall inherit the Garden and live there forever… ‫اﺬ‬ ‫و ذر‬ ‫ أو ﻚ ه‬. ‫ﺮه‬ ‫م ﻬ‬ ‫ﻰ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ﻬ ا ﻮا‬ ...‫ﻬﺎ ﺎ ﺪون‬ ‫ا ﺎ ﻮن ﺎﻹ ﺎن ﺎ‬ ‫أﺻ ﺎ و‬ ‫ﺮﺛﻮن ا ﺮدوس ه‬ ‫اﺻ ﺎه اﷲ‬ ‫ا ﺎ ﺰون ا ﺬ‬ The actual verse in the cUthmānic Mu ḥaf reads Q. 56:10-11: ‫( ا ﺎ ﻮن ا ﺎ ﻮن أو ﻚ ا ﺮ ﻮن‬but the foremost will be the foremost [in faith and good deeds]). Thus, the interpolation in the alleged Ibn Mascūd reading has an explicit Shicite sensibility. al-Bāqillānī, Icjāz al-Qur’ān, pp.291-292 and idem, al-Inti ār, pp.190-191. Some of these reports are true in their transmission but nevertheless, in relation to the numerous narrations to the contrary, these reports must be considered unacceptable. See Azami, The History of the Qur’ānic Text, pp.200-203. 16 Two Muqaddimas to the Qur’ānic Sciences, pp.96-97 and al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmic li-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, vol.20, p.251. 17 Two Muqaddimas to the Qur’ānic Sciences, p.97. 14 15