In Search of the Original Koran: The True History of the Revealed Text (3 page)

First let me rectify a misunderstanding long maintained by Muslim orthodoxy. In order to prove that the Koranic text is perfectly authentic, it has been alleged that God committed himself to preserving it from any alteration due to the vagaries of its transmission through time and across generations. This doctrine was essentially founded on this verse: "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (dhikr); and We will assuredly guard it (inna lahu lahafizuu)" (15:9). One often finds this verse as an epigraph in Koran copies in order to stress their authenticity. Does the dhikr refer here to the Koranic text? In fact, study of the occurrences of this term in the Koran show that dhikr designates the genre of the tale that one is citing (dhakara, i.e., to cite) for pedagogic purposes, in order to draw a lesson from it. The Koran utilizes this term specifically to designate the tales of ancient peoples like `Ad, Thamud, and so on, which believers are called upon to keep in their memories. God thus possesses the detailed stories of these peoples, which he keeps close to himself. This is repeated elsewhere: the message (tadhkira) is found "in Books held in honor, exalted, kept pure and holy, [written] by the hands of scribes honorable and pious and just" (80:13-16). And so it is clear that dhikr refers not to the Koranic text but to the ensemble of stories drawn from the heavenly pages, which benefit from the greatest divine care. It is the same for the qur'an, which is still drawn from a heavenly original: "This is a Glorious Qur'an (recitation), [inscribed] in a Tablet Preserved! (mahfuz)" (85:21-22). Although here the Arabic text does not tell us clearly whether it is the tablet (the original) or the recitation that is the object of conservation, in any case, this recitation is authenticated by means of the celestial tablet that exists as the original. And like any original, it is the object of every care-"by the hands of scribes honorable and pious and just"-and especially of every kind of vigilance: " ... in a Book well-guarded, which none shall touch but those who are clean" (56:78-79). Note that at no time are these heavenly guardians occupied with the safekeeping or preservation of the recited copy (qur'an) from any alteration in the course of its transmission across the generations.

In addition, the text revealed to Muhammad constitutes only an extract of the great book (kitab) in God's possession, which includes among other things the chronicle of the world. When Pharaoh challenged Moses by posing this question-"What then is the condition of previous generations?"-the latter replied: "The knowledge of that (`ilmuha) is with my Lord, duly recorded (kitab) [by means of which] my Lord never errs, nor forgets" (20:51-52). So this is a matter of a veritable celestial library containing the knowledge of the world, from which is extracted the Koranic revelation, as well as the other Abra- hamic revelations.'

The idea that this heavenly book is consigned to a preserved tablet is quite ancient, going back to the Sumerians.' They bequeathed to us the idea of destiny consigned to writing: maktub is an important concept in Oriental and Arab-Muslim mentality, found in the Koran through the expression kutiba `ala: "[it has been] decreed to [someone]."

Similarly, it is the original of the book-and not its copy-that God has committed himself to preserving, for example, when he orders Muhammad: "And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book (kitab) of thy Lord: none can change His Words (kalimat), and you shall find no refuge besides Him" (18:27). Since the original text is not subject to the principle of change, the Prophet could not feel authorized to modify the recited copy. We can indeed see that the original serves as a source of authentication, and at the same time as a dissuasive argument against any attempt at falsehood, including on the part of the Prophet himself.

This original, moreover, is designated as "Mother of the Book" (umm al-kitab): "By the Book that makes things plain [...] in the Mother of the Book, in Our Keeping" (43:2-4). This notion of "Mother" signifies in the Arabic language the "source," or else the "center," as in the Koranic expression "the mother of cities" (umm al-qura), referring to Mecca as the Arab capital. It is the very function of the original to play the role of matrix or kernel from which the copy is drawn. Thus we see appearing a genetic relation, or rather the precedence of an immutable original over a copy exposed to all dangers.

However, another term exists that is utilized in the Koran to refer to the troubled relation between the original and the copy, the verb saddaqa, as in this passage from the Koran: "That which We have revealed to you of the Book (kitab) is the Truth, in accordance (musaddigan) with [the original Book] that is in His possession (ma bayna yadayhi)" (35:31). The revelation is here declared through the verb saddaqa, meaning conforming or faithful to the heavenly original.

But does this mean that this conformity signifies a literal identity between the copy and its original? Here the answer can only be negative, since this notion of conformity is applied in the Koran to designate the type of relationship between previous revealed texts that nec essarily differ among themselves in the letter, but are identical as to their spiritual content: "now that a Book [the Koran] confirming (musaddiq) their own has come to them [Jews] from God ..." (2:89). Just as the "Gospel" coming through Jesus conforms to the Torah (5:46), so the book (kitab) coming through Muhammad conforms to the "Scripture" (5:48). These examples demonstrate that the conformity of the copy to its original is identical to that which exists between the revealed texts. The copy revealed to Muhammad is thus far from reproducing literally the heavenly text (kitab) consigned to the tablet guarded by the pure angels: according to the Koran, it merely conserves its general meaning.

For their part, Muslim traditionalists have not hesitated to formulate clearly hypotheses about the literal nonconformity between the heavenly original and its copy transmitted by Muhammad. Thus, Suyuti (died in 1505 CE)-author of a treatise that remains a model of its kind on the Koran-lays out three hypotheses about the mode of transmission of the original text. The first is quite evidently that of the literal conformity between the original and the copy. The second hypothesizes that the archangel "Gabriel could have descended especially [sic] with the meanings [of the Koran], and Muhammad could then have learned these meanings and expressed them in the language of the Arabs." The third hypothesis is that "Gabriel would have received these meanings [of the Koranic text] and he would have expressed them in the Arabic language-the inhabitants of Heaven would have read the Koran in Arabic-and in this way he would have made it descend [onto Muhammad]."3 Here we see that the last two hypotheses clearly advance the idea of the literal inauthenticity of the Koranic text with respect to the heavenly original.

One verse of the Koran even chimes with the second scenario of the transmission of the heavenly text: "We have made it [the kitab] a recitation (qur'an) in Arabic" (43:3). So it is indeed God and his angelic scribes, with Gabriel at their head, who are thought to have proceeded to the elaboration of the Arabic text received by Muhammad. Still, one should not necessarily see this Arabic version as a literal translation of the original. Tradition even claims that Gabriel had not himself read the heavenly tablet and that God, in order to transmit his words, had inspired in him "[the] revealed [Words] (takallama bi-al-wahy)." This divine inspiration in a loud voice is said to "make Heaven tremble for fear of God. And as soon as the inhabitants of Heaven hear [these words], they are struck by lightning and fall down prostrate. And the first who lifts his head is Gabriel. This is when God communicates to him orally what He wants of His revelation. Gabriel dictates in his turn these Words to [other angels]. And in each one of the Heavens, the inhabitants ask him: `What did our Lord say?' and Gabriel replies: `[He said] the Truth."' And this is how Gabriel transmits the revelation from heaven to heaven down to Muhammad, his final recipient.'

The exegete Al-Juwayni has split things down the middle. For him, the Koran contains two genres of juxtaposed texts that conform to two customary possibilities of transmission of missives within royal tradition. One part of the Koranic text is said to be transmitted according to the meaning, without taking into account the letter of the original text dictated by God. The other part, inversely, is said to be a copy literally conforming to the message dictated by God.'

With this doctrine of a revelation transmitted according to the meaning and not according to the letter, we attain a new stage in the rupture of the unity of the Koranic revelation. After having witnessed the splitting of the revelation into an original and a copy, and then the literal differentiation between the two, we now arrive at the explosion of the copy into a multiplicity of possibilities of literal expression. This is the theory advanced by the Tradition of the Seven Letters (sab` ahruj), or Seven Readings (sab` gira'at). Tradition justifies this theory by means of a hadith reported by Uthman, which has Muhammad say: "The Koran descended according to Seven Letters."6

Suyuti asserts that this hadith has been interpreted in forty ways. Among them, Ibn Qutayba's thesis explains that it must have been a matter of seven "modes of variation" of the Koran's text, as follows: 1) that of declension, without the meaning being affected; 2) that of verb tenses; 3) that of letters with the same graphic form but having different diacritical signs; 4) that of letters similar in their graphics; 5) that of the place of groups of words in the sentence; 6) variation of the text by adding or suppressing words; and finally, 7) variation in words according to their synonyms.7 Al-Razi, for his part, adds variations of words of the Koran by the kind, number, and mode of pronunciation.8 The same Suyuti relates a thesis, reported by Ibn Hanbal, explaining the "Seven Letters" as the possibility for each word of the Koran to be replaced by seven synonyms.9 Ubayy, one of the secretaries of Muhammad charged with the redaction of the Koran, was even said to have expressed this as a rule that he applied in his version of the Koran: "I said [in the Koran] Magisterial and Learned, [instead of] Powerful and Wise, [but without going so far as to betray the meaning, as is done when] one substitutes the expression for pardon with one for punishment, or vice versa."10 Thus, Ubayy, one of the most important scribes of the Prophet, whose name is associated with the redaction of the Koran, goes well beyond simple synonymy in establishing the legitimacy of the infinite freedom of variants-on the sole condition, however, that this does not lead to misinterpretation. It has even been said that the second caliph, Umar (to whom has been attributed the first collection of the texts comprising the Koran), made this assertion: "Everything that is said in the Koran is correct (sawdb) as long as one does not substitute punishment for pardon (i.e., one does not commit misinterpretation)."11

Suyuti reports here variants used by Ubayy in verse 2:20, substituting for "walk" the synonyms "pass" and "go." Suyuti also cites variants by Ibn Masud, another secretary to Muhammad, replacing in verse 57:13 the verb "to be patient" with "to wait" and "to delay the outcome."' 2 And Suyuti reports this anecdote: "Ibn Masud asked a reader to read the phrase `the tree of Zagqum shall be the food of the sinner' (44:43-44). But this reader could only pronounce `the food of the orphan.' Ibn Masud had him take it again but with no success. So then he asked him: `Can you pronounce "food of the depraved"?' The man replied `Yes,' so Ibn Masud told him: `Then keep this expres- sion!"'13