Page 119 - History of The Quranic Text | Kalamullah.Com

'UTHMAN'S MU~J:lAF 99

(2)a missing initial J in lyjL..; (3) a missing initial J in J~; (4)a double ~
in .:>..wJ-; (5)a missing initial J in J-ll\; (6)an extra r in kp; (7)J instead of
.j ... etc. Totalling a mere thirteen letters in 9000 lines, these variations
are inconsequential to the meaning of each verse and bear no alteration
to the semantics whatsoever. But they cannot be attributed to carelessness.
Zaid bin Thabit, in each case fmding both readings to be authentic and
of equal status, retained them in different copies. 54 The inclusion of both
side by side would only have wrought confusion; alternatively, placing one
of them in the margin would imply a lesser degree of authenticity. By
placing them in different copies he accommodated them on equal terms.
The modern approach to textual criticism requires that, when variations
arise between two manuscripts of equal status, the editor cites one of the
two in the core text while the deviations are consigned to footnotes. This
method is unjust however, as it demotes the value of the second copy.Zaid's
scheme is much the fairer; by preparing multiple copies he sidesteps any
implications that this or that reading is superior, giving each variant its
just due. 55
Many other scholars expended their time and fatigue in comparing 'Uth-
man's Mushafs, reporting what they found with sincerity and attempting
to hide nothing; Abu ad-Darda', a noted Companion, worked extensively
on this subject before passing away within a decade of their dispatch-
ment, leaving his widow to transmit his findings. 56 For simplicity's sake I
have decided to forego any additional lists.57But their findings, when taken
together, are startling. All differences in the Mushafs of Makkah, Madinah,
Knfa, Basra, Syria, and 'Uthman's master copy involve single letters, such
as: J, .j, I, '" etc., the only exception being the exclusion of yo ('he') in
one verse where the meaning isin no way affected. These variations amount
to no more than forty characters scattered throughout six Mushafs.
A final word of clarification: these early scholars based their studies only
on the official copies of the Mushaf, as sent by 'Uthman himself, or on
duplicate copies made and kept by well-known Companions and Qur'anic
scholars. Theirs was not a research into the private copies kept by the
public at large (which must have numbered in the thousands), because
the official Mushafs were the standard and not the other way around.

54 Abu 'Ubaid, FGI/ii'il, p. 333; see also ad-Dani, al-Muqni', pp. 118-9.
55 This is also the methodology of the early muhadddhin. In comparing different copies
of the same &adith manuscript, they either mention one copy's text without reference
to variations, or cite all the variations inside the core text itself instead of placing notes
in the margins. In the Sa&l& of Muslim for instance, the &adith on salat no. 245 indicates
only Ibn Numair's narration; three &adiths earlier (salat no. 242), he provides a full
account of the different narrations while keeping them inside the core text.
56 See AbU 'Ubaid, Fatja'il, p. 330.
57 See for example Abu [Ubaid, Fatja'il, pp. 328-333; also ad-Darn, al-Muqni', pp.
112-4.