The dialectic of collecting the Qur’an: A Critical Reading in the Light of Qur’anic Texts and Hadith Narratives

The question of methodology in understanding religion is one of the core issues that is constantly being debated among scholars in Islamic studies. If the issue is whether the flaw lies in the application or in the methodology itself, a careful analysis requires a re-examination of the details of the methodology to determine exactly where the flaws lie. In this context, the following question arises: What part of the curriculum went awry and led to the errors?

It is axiomatic that the seeker of truth and the path of salvation should adopt a methodology based on adherence to the Qur’anic text as a basis of reference, so that everything else is subjected to it and not the other way around. From this point of view, some scholars have adopted the view that whatever agrees with the Qur’an is taken and whatever disagrees with it is left out, as the Qur’an is the original and unquestionable source of knowledge. On the other hand, the defenders of the Sunnah as a second source of legislation posed the question: “Who transmitted the Qur’an to us?“, pointing out that the companions who transmitted the hadith are the same ones who transmitted the Qur’an, so questioning the authenticity of the hadith entails questioning the authenticity of the Qur’an itself.

Distinguishing between Qur’anic and Sunnah codification: The issue of temporal documentation

In response to this argument, researchers have reconsidered the Qur’anic texts directly, emphasizing that the Qur’an was written from day one, as evidenced by internal evidence from the Qur’an itself, and has been passed down in writing from generation to generation until the present day. On the other hand, the hadiths were not written down until about 150 years after the Prophet’s death, which raises questions about the validity of attributing certain hadiths to him, especially given the possibility that they may have been distorted or added or subtracted as a result of oral transmission before they were officially written down.

This view is based on the fundamental difference between the Qur’an and the Sunnah in the method of transmission, as the Qur’an was preserved in text and verbal form, while the hadith was transmitted mostly in meaning, allowing for different narratives and different words. If the hadith had been written down during the time of the Prophet, as some claim, it would have reached us with the same verbal accuracy as the Quran, and there would have been clear records dating back to the time of the Prophet, attributed to the companions who are said to have written down the hadith, such as Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Umar, and others. However, the absence of such written texts from the Prophetic era casts doubt on the narrative claiming the early codification of the hadith.

Trying to Equalize the Qur’an and Sunnah: The Problem of Legislative Categorization

Faced with these issues, the defenders of the hadith found themselves in an epistemological impasse, prompting them to try to strengthen their position by arguing that the Sunnah is a second revelation, and even sought to equate it with the Qur’an in terms of authenticity and legislation. Since it was difficult to prove their equality in terms of conclusive evidence, they resorted to another strategy, which was to try to lower the status of the Qur’an to that of the hadith.

In this context, they relied on the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith No. 4424), which states that although the Qur’an was written during the lifetime of the Prophet, it was dispersed among ruka, bones, and palm fronds, and was only compiled into a single Qur’an during the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), in response to the advice of Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), after a large number of custodians were killed in the Battle of Yamamah. Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him), one of the scribes of the revelation, was responsible for collecting the Qur’an according to the methodology accepted by the Companions, as it is mentioned in the narration:

“…I followed the Qur’an, collecting it from the Ruqa’a, the shoulders, the asabs, and the chests of men, until I found two verses from Surat al-Tawba with Khuzaymah al-Ansari that I did not find with anyone else… The papers in which the Qur’an was collected were with Abu Bakr until Allah’s death, then with ‘Umar until Allah’s death, then with Hafsa, daughter of ‘Umar .” (Sahih Bukhari, 4424 ).

This evidence is used to argue that the Qur’an was not compiled into a single Qur’an during the Prophet’s lifetime, but was compiled later, which – according to proponents of this argument – means that the Qur’an and the Sunnah undergo similar circumstances of transmission. However, this reasoning does not deny that the Qur’an, unlike the Hadith, was written from the beginning and did not rely on oral transmission alone, but was preserved and documented in a clear codification process.

This controversy raises central questions about the nature of the relationship between the Quran and the Sunnah, and the validity of attributing hadiths to the Prophet in light of the time difference between their codification. While some scholars emphasize the need to re-examine the hadiths under more rigorous critical criteria, others maintain the authority of the hadith as a complement to the Quran. However, separating the nature of transmission in both sources remains essential in determining the level of authenticity and reliance on them for Islamic legislation.

The second collection of the Quran during the reign of Uthman ibn Affan

Continuing the debate over the authenticity of the Quran, Sahih al-Bukhari contains a narration referring to the second compilationof the Quran, which took place during the reign of the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. Bukhari reports in Hadith 4722 that after participating in the battles to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamannoticed differences in the readings of the Qur’an between the people of the Levant and the people of Iraq, which prompted him to address Caliph Uthman, saying:

“O Amir al-Mu’minin, realize this Ummah before they differ in the Book between the Jews and Christians .”

Accordingly, Uthman ibn Affan asked Umm al-Mu’minin Hafsa bint Umar to send him the newspapers in which the Qur’an had previously been compiled, so that they could be copied into standardized Qur’ans. He assigned this task to a number of companions, the most prominent of whom were Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Sa’id ibn al-‘As, and Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham . ‘Uthman ordered them to If there is a discrepancy in the transcription, it must be written in the language of the Quraysh as the Qur’an was revealed in their language. After the copying was completed, these Qurans were sent to the different provinces, and any other Qurans containing different readings were ordered to be burned.

The hadith adds that the Companion Kharga ibn Zayd heard his father Zayd ibn Thabit say:

“I lost a verse from Al-Ahzab when we copied the Qur’an that I used to hear the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) recite, so we looked for it and found it with Khuzayma bin Thabit al-Ansari: {Men of the believers are men who are true to what they have promised to Allah}, so we added it to its chapter in the Qur’an. .” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith No. 4722 ).

The issue of Qur’anic authentication between the first and second collection

This narration suggests that even though the Qur’an was initially written under the supervision of the Prophet, the need to compile it into a unified Qur’an was not urgent until the expansion of Islam beyond Arabia. Had disagreements between Muslims over readings not arisen, the Qur’an would have remained scattered among scrolls, bones, and men’s chests. This raises a fundamental question: Why didn’t the Prophet (peace be upon him) compile the Qur’an into one book himself, since it was written during his lifetime?

In this context, a number of critical observations can be made about the narratives that dealt with the collection of the Qur’an:

1. You can memorize the Quran without a written document
   • It is hard to imagine memorizing the entire Qur’an by heart through oral transmission, without a written copy to refer to. How could the Companions have memorized the entire Qur’an during the lifetime of the Prophet and during the caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, if there was no written document to collect it?
2. The question of the Qur’an remaining scattered after the death of the Prophet (PBUH)
   • Is it conceivable that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would leave this world without collecting the revelations revealed to him in a unified and organized form, leaving them dispersed and scattered on different materials such as tablets, skins, bones and patches, in the hands of the Companions’ scribes? If he was going to leave these texts scattered Wouldn’t it have been more effective and appropriate for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to personally supervise the collection of all written revelations, regardless of the material on which they were written, and to keep them in one place, such as his house, even if they did not take the form of an official and complete book?
3. Attributing the task of compiling the Qur’an to Zayd ibn Thabit
   • Accounts indicate that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq assigned Zayd ibn Thabit, one of the young companions, the task of collecting the Qur’an, despite the presence of senior companions such as Ali ibn Abi Talib, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, Talha ibn Ubaydullah, Zubayr ibn al-Awam, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas . The question arises here: Why was this great work not attributed to one of these companions who witnessed the revelation from the beginning, especially since Zayd ibn Thabit was born in Medina ten years before the Hijrah, which means he did not witness the revelation of the Meccan verses?
   • In the second compilation of the Qur’an during the reign of ‘Uthman, the task was assigned to a number of companions who were younger than Zayd, and some of them were followers, which raises the question of why they were chosen for this task and not other senior companions.

The Qur’an as a curriculum independent of other sources

In light of these questions, it is important to reconsider the relationship between the Qur’an and other sources. As mentioned in previous discussions, the The Qur’anic text is characterized by unique documentation, making it the only source that was transmitted to us in writing from the very first moment, unlike other sources that went through a late compilation phase .

Given the accounts in Sahih al-Bukhari about the compilation of the Qur’an, it is necessary to question the accuracy of oral transmission and the extent to which it relied on writing down, which brings up the fundamental question: Can the Qur’an be considered the sole source of legislation, or is it necessary to rely on additional sources?

The study of the accounts of the collection of the Qur’an under Abu Bakr and Uthman highlights key issues related to the preservation and authentication of texts, issues that are not limited to Islamic studies, but extend to manuscript science and textual transmission in different civilizations.

The Issue of Naskh and Ottoman Painting: An analytical study in the light of Qur’anic texts

The hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari (4722 ) about the compilation of the Qur’an during the reign of Uthman ibn Affan raises questions regarding the nature and implications of this compilation, especially with regard to the question of the Ottoman drawing of the Holy Qur’an. It is reported that ‘Uthman asked Umm al-Mu’minin Hafsa bint ‘Umar to send him the newspapers in which the Qur’an was compiled, so that they could be copied into standardized Qur’ans. This seems consistent with the first hadith about the collection during the reign of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, but what raises questions is Uthman’s directive to those in charge of copying:

“If you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree on anything of the Qur’an, write it in the language of the Quraysh .” (Sahih Bukhari, 4722 ).

The difference in transcription: Between the memorized text and the written form

What is the nature of the difference that may arise if the matter does not go beyond the process of copying the texts of the Holy Qur’an from Mrs. Hafsa’s Qur’an to other Qur’ans during the time of Caliph Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him)? What role did Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab and Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with them all) play in this process? Was their work not to transfer the Qur’anic texts that were written on parchments, shoulders and skins under the supervision of the Prophet (pbuh) to more organized and longer lasting papers, whether of leather or paper?

If the matter is limited to the literal copying of texts without modification or alteration, what is the nature of the dispute that could arise? Unless the writing of texts is characterized by an Ijtihadic nature rather than a fixed and specific approach, which is what the second hadith seems to indicate through this phrase. The fact that the way the Qur’an was written during the time of ‘Uthman was called the “Ottoman drawing” may be another indication of the existence of this discretionary nature in the writing process.

Ottoman painting: Divine Revelation or Human Ijtihad?

Accounts indicate that Zayd ibn Thabit copied what was written under the Prophet’s supervision into Hafsa‘s Qur’an, and then returned during Uthman’s reign to copy what he had previously copied into the Qur’ans that were sent to the provinces. A key question arises: Why was this new version called the Ottoman drawing, when it should have been attributed to the Prophet, as he was the first supervisor of the codification of the revelation?

• If the name was only for the Qur’an and not the drawing, it would have been acceptable, just as the first Qur’an was calledHafsa‘s Qur’an, as it was preserved by her.
• However, attributing the drawing itself to Uthman implies that there was human judgment in the way it was written, which contradicts the belief that the drawing is divinely inspired, which reinforces the hypothesis that the Qur’an was written according to direct divine revelation, not human diligence in calligraphy and writing .

Discrepancies between narratives and their impact on the authenticity of the Qur’an

The apparent contradiction between Hadith narratives makes it necessary to reconsider the provenance of the Qur’an and how it came to us. Among the issues raised by these narratives are:

1. Canonization of Ottoman painting
   • The sanctification of the so-called “Ottoman drawing” despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its authenticity, is evidence that this sanctity does not come from the fact that it is an Ottoman drawing, as the hadiths try to suggest, but because it is a divine drawing, which we will prove later or (what we will prove in future articles).
2. Discrepancies between narratives about the Prophet’s role in collecting the Qur’an
   • If the Qur’an was written from the beginning by the scribes of the revelation, why wasn’t it collected during the Prophet’s reign and preserved as a single Qur’an? Why didn’t the Prophet order it to be collected in a unified book, instead of remaining scattered?
   • According to accounts, the reason for collecting the Qur’an after the Prophet’s death was the killing of the memorizers in the Battle of Yamama, which reinforces the hypothesis that the primary reliance was on oral rather than written transmission, which contradicts the hypothesis that the Qur’an was preserved in writing from the beginning.
3. The directive to write in the Quraysh language: The Problem of Standardization
   • Uthman’s hadith indicates that the companions who were tasked with copying the text encountered discrepancies in the text, prompting him to order it to be written in the tongue of Quraysh. This raises an important question: Was there a difference in the way the Quran was written from the beginning? And if so, was the Ottoman script a human linguistic choice or a revelation?

Approach to researching Qur’anic sources: Return to the Qur’anic text itself

In the face of these contradictions, we had to look for a more reliable answer, not through historical accounts alone, but through the Quran itself. The Qur’an describes itself as a “written book“ and not just an oral text passed down from generation to generation. For example, some verses indicate that the Quran was written from the moment it was revealed:

Nay, it is a reminder for whomever wishes to be reminded of it, in honored, elevated, purified books by the hands of honorable and righteous travelers.
(Surah Abs, 11-16 )

These verses indicate that the Qur’an was written in honored newspapers, which contradicts accounts that it was not collected until after the death of the Prophet (pbuh). The Qur’anic text does not refer to any human role in the choice of drawing or writing, but rather emphasizes that the Qur’an is preserved by divine command:

“We are the ones who downloaded the remembrance, and we are the ones who preserve it.
(Surat al-Hajar, 9 )

Conclusion

This study sheds light on the issues raised by the Ottoman compilation of the Qur’an, particularly with regard to the concept of Ottoman painting and the late canonization of its writing method. While the Hadith narratives are based on a gradual process of collecting the Qur’anic text, the Qur’an itself shows that it was written from the beginning, which calls for a reconsideration of the way in which the Qur’an has been documented through the ages.

This study invites the reader to return to the Qur’an itself to understand how it was revealed and codified, rather than relying solely on historical accounts, which may reflect human jurisprudence rather than definitive facts.