muslimah
02-10-2004, 12:08 PM
History of the Holy Quran
The Holy Qur’an - its revelation and history of compilation
In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
The Holy Qur’an was presented to the people of Arabia by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). It was presented in parts during 23 years of his prophetic life. The Book presents itself as the word of God and the Holy Prophet also presented as such.
The Muslims believe that the Holy Qur’an, being the revealed word of God, is the cornerstone of their faith. They get their philosophy, beliefs and laws from this book.
The Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet actually heard or received the divine words. The Holy Qur’an was communicated to the Holy Prophet through Wahee (Revelation). It is verbatim in nature, that is to say, that the Holy Qur’an consists of actual words of Allah, communicated to the Holy Prophet.
The words and verses of the Holy Qur’an were preserved, through the oral as well as the written traditions, in the Holy Prophet’s lifetime. A very large number of companions of the Prophet participated in this preservation process and the text was safely handed over to the next generation. The process was so immaculate and tremendously sound, that the preservation of the Holy Qur’an has become an established fact of history.
This can be explained in the terms of history where we would like to know when an historical fact is established beyond any shadow of doubt.
Chains of reports consisting of individuals
Usually reports about the past have reached us through oral reports, written reports, practical tradition or archaeological artifacts.
For instance, the views of Socrates originated as oral reports (words of mouth) which were later recorded by Plato and other writers. The plays of Shakespeare have reached us through documentary evidence (written words). The report that Buddha used to meditate in a certain posture has reached us through archaeological remains (pieces of art - artifacts - like statues and engravings). The Christian institution of Baptism and the way a newborn is baptized has traveled through centuries to us through practical continuity (practice). These reports are considered as micro-history. They are to be judged in the light of the authenticity of the narrators (in case of oral evidence), the scribes (in case of written evidence), the clerics (in case religious rites) or the artists that created the pieces of art (in case of archaeological evidence).
Discussions in micro history hinge on detailed and incisive discussions on individuals (scribes, narrators and artists etc.). The authenticity of the report depends upon the veracity of these individuals. The lives of these individuals are examined to get an idea of the authenticity of the report they have conveyed us. Their character, capabilities, resources, environment, and location at a certain place and time are studied. Obviously, the individual being the kingpin in such instances of micro-history must be shown to be reliable, truthful, unprejudiced and intelligent (to confirm his ability to comprehend, retain and truly express the facts).
Once the personal traits of the individuals are investigated, the historians turn to the question of continuity. Continuity means that the individuals involved in collecting and then transmitting the report to us must be shown to be in a state of uninterrupted contact and communication. We are referring to the fact that there should be an immediate proximity in time and place between the two reporters who form one ring of the chain of transmission. There should be no time when the report remained with anonymous narrators because then we cannot investigate the personal traits of the individuals. It should also not suffer from oblivion because, in that case, any change or corruption in the report, during the time it remained hidden from us, cannot be ruled out. If the communication between two consecutive reporters is smooth, continuous and uninterrupted, the report gathers strength. This evidence for continuity is however to be produced in respect of each stage of the chain of reporters, enabling us to say with a fair degree of confidence that the report is worth consideration.
If the investigation of individuals and continuity of the report leads to positive conclusions, we have established one chain of the report. Sometimes two or more such chains of reports, leading to the same event, can be established. For example, two courtiers of Akbar the Great may narrate the same incident. In such cases, the supporting narration should be identical or at least similar. If the individuals involved in the chain and the continuity of their transmission has been investigated, these corroborating reports strengthen and reinforce each other and we are able to place more confidence in the substance brought out by them.
We can summarize our discussion by saying that in micro history, the following components are vital:
· Individuals
· Continuity of the report
· Corroboration (if any, by way of multiple chains of individuals)
If an event or a substance is supported by this investigation it becomes worth considering for a historian. However, information obtained through chains of individual to individual transmission can never establish a fact beyond any shadow of doubt. The primary reason is that in such examinations, the historicity of the report ultimately depends on one or two individuals. If our assessment about even one of the individuals in the chain of reporters is faulty, the entire chain is shaken. These individuals may be widely known as men of reasonably good character, fairly reliable memory, relatively sound understanding and relatively free of prejudices. However, they cannot be assumed to be of infallibly good character, unfailing memory, perfect understanding and absolutely free of prejudices. This makes our assessment of individual reports somehow subjective and introduces an element of probability in our judgments.
Similarly, our investigation (and finally our judgment) about them can be extremely cautious, scientific and objective, yet it cannot be infallible and indubitable. We were told that an individual was known to be honest, truthful and reliable, but we know that individual behavior is not predictable. After all we are dealing with human beings. One may be honest and truthful throughout one’s life but stumble in the end. One may have a sound memory yet he may sometimes be forgetful also.
Moreover, how are we going to collect evidence about the personal traits of these individuals? Obviously we would be looking for more parallel chains of reporters to learn about a certain individual. These sources would suffer from the same limitations, thereby compounding our problem.
Chains of reports consisting of Generations
On the other hand in macro history we deal with facts, incidents and reports transmitted, not by one or two individuals to another individual, but by one generation that witnessed a fact and testified it to the next generation. For example, the fact that the Crusades did take place between Christians and the Muslims is a fact transmitted by generations to generations. The generation that actually fought and witnessed the wars conveyed this knowledge to the next generation and so on till it reached us. This communication to succeeding generations can be through any means - oral, written or through any mode of art. But the important condition is that there should be no interruption between the successive generations that were involved.
Here we may note that the units of such chains of transmission are not individuals, but generations. This singular difference changes the very character of such a report.
Historical facts are empirical observations of men. This means that they communicate to other people facts they had observed through their senses. The limitations of senses are known. However, in Generation-to-Generation Transmission, we are talking of the empirical observations of the entire generations and not of a few individuals. Such testimony, obviously, provides us the surest and the most reliable knowledge of a past event. Such knowledge is as definite as anything can be in human matters.
When we are talking of scientific principles of history, an important condition of Generation-to- Generation Transfer is that it should not deal with opinions and ideas of individuals but the hard facts, which were witnessed, seen and/or heard by the first Generation (empirical facts) This condition eliminates the possibility of mythologies and opinions being included in the Generation-to-Generation Transmission.
Summarizing the salient differences between Individual-to-Individual Transmission and Generation-to-Generation Transmission are:
1. The reliability of the report from generation to generation does not hinge upon one or two individuals. It rather depends on the hundreds and thousands of people that lived together in a known place and time.
2. It is no more necessary to investigate the character, understanding, memory or impartiality of individuals involved in a Generation-to-Generation transmission. The entire generations can neither be investigated not should it be necessary. When such a large number of people convey a fact, it is impossible that all of them could have wrongly reported it, forgotten it or could have developed a consensus on telling lies.
3. There is no need to establish the continuity of reporting chain consisting of individuals. One generation is so perfectly enmeshed into another, and the contact and proximity with the next generation is so intimate and obvious that conducting an inquiry to prove it is not required, and the continuity should be taken as granted.
4. When hundreds and thousands of people are conveying a fact to the next generation, we do not need any corroborating evidence. Agreement of the entire generation is so overwhelmingly strong that it renders further corroboration redundant.
5. An Individual-to-Individual Report only makes a fact probable and therefore remains open to further investigations and is revised in the light of fresh discoveries, whereas a Generation-to-Generation Transmission proves the fact beyond any shadow of doubt.
Terminology of the Muslim Historiography
In the Historiography (Ilm-e-Hadeeth) developed by the Muslims, the Individual to Individual Report is termed as Khabar-e-Wahid (Individuals’ Report) whereas the Generation to Generation Report is called Mutawatir, and the process of Generation to Generation Transmission is known as Tawatur.
The entire history is seen as divided into these two broad categories. It is believed that Tawatur is above all suspicion and there is no need to investigate the individuals involved in communicating it. Rather, a Mutawatir report is defined as one in which there is no need to examine the individuals constituting the chain, because there is no chain of individuals that can be termed as the basis of the tawatur.
Tawatur is thus defined as the process by which one generation communicates a fact (observed or heard) to another, and so on, without interruption. This communications is achieved in such a manner that the number of communicators in each generation is so large that there is no possibility of the fact being misperceived, misconstrued, forgotten or their having agreed to tell a lie or distort the facts.
The Holy Qur’an has reached us through Tawatur
The Holy Qur’an has reached us through the process of tawatur - historical continuity and perpetuation achieved through transfer from generation to generation. When we say that the Qur’an has reached us through tawatur, we mean to say that so many people in every generation conveyed it to the next and so on that there can be no doubt about its authenticity. It would be incorrect to believe that a few persons in one generation transmitted it to a few persons in the next. It was handed over by the entire generations to the successive generations. The Generation of the Companions of the Holy Prophet witnessed the revelation and compilation of the Holy Qur’an during the life of the Holy Prophet and then handed it over to the next generation and so on.
The authenticity of the Holy Qur’an has far exceeded the need for any debate. In the presence of established history, we would not accept any individual reports and rumors that assail the Mutawatir Foundation. Since it has achieved the status of Tawatur, no odd Individuals’ Report would affect its credibility. When generations and generations of people without interruption hold the Qur’an as the one and only version of the divine guidance received from the Holy Prophet, such dissenting individual reports would not infringe upon its authenticity. The overwhelming evidence of millions of people would simply override the evidence of a few individuals.
History of Compilation of the Holy Qur’an
The details of the history of compilation of the Holy Qur’an found in the books of history and exegesis provide us the details of the process of Qur’anic preservation and dissemination. However, while we scan through the hadeeth literature and historical records, it should be kept in mind that the historical authenticity, of the Holy Qur’an, is not based on these records, but on Tawatur.
The Holy Qur’an - its revelation and history of compilation
In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
The Holy Qur’an was presented to the people of Arabia by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). It was presented in parts during 23 years of his prophetic life. The Book presents itself as the word of God and the Holy Prophet also presented as such.
The Muslims believe that the Holy Qur’an, being the revealed word of God, is the cornerstone of their faith. They get their philosophy, beliefs and laws from this book.
The Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet actually heard or received the divine words. The Holy Qur’an was communicated to the Holy Prophet through Wahee (Revelation). It is verbatim in nature, that is to say, that the Holy Qur’an consists of actual words of Allah, communicated to the Holy Prophet.
The words and verses of the Holy Qur’an were preserved, through the oral as well as the written traditions, in the Holy Prophet’s lifetime. A very large number of companions of the Prophet participated in this preservation process and the text was safely handed over to the next generation. The process was so immaculate and tremendously sound, that the preservation of the Holy Qur’an has become an established fact of history.
This can be explained in the terms of history where we would like to know when an historical fact is established beyond any shadow of doubt.
Chains of reports consisting of individuals
Usually reports about the past have reached us through oral reports, written reports, practical tradition or archaeological artifacts.
For instance, the views of Socrates originated as oral reports (words of mouth) which were later recorded by Plato and other writers. The plays of Shakespeare have reached us through documentary evidence (written words). The report that Buddha used to meditate in a certain posture has reached us through archaeological remains (pieces of art - artifacts - like statues and engravings). The Christian institution of Baptism and the way a newborn is baptized has traveled through centuries to us through practical continuity (practice). These reports are considered as micro-history. They are to be judged in the light of the authenticity of the narrators (in case of oral evidence), the scribes (in case of written evidence), the clerics (in case religious rites) or the artists that created the pieces of art (in case of archaeological evidence).
Discussions in micro history hinge on detailed and incisive discussions on individuals (scribes, narrators and artists etc.). The authenticity of the report depends upon the veracity of these individuals. The lives of these individuals are examined to get an idea of the authenticity of the report they have conveyed us. Their character, capabilities, resources, environment, and location at a certain place and time are studied. Obviously, the individual being the kingpin in such instances of micro-history must be shown to be reliable, truthful, unprejudiced and intelligent (to confirm his ability to comprehend, retain and truly express the facts).
Once the personal traits of the individuals are investigated, the historians turn to the question of continuity. Continuity means that the individuals involved in collecting and then transmitting the report to us must be shown to be in a state of uninterrupted contact and communication. We are referring to the fact that there should be an immediate proximity in time and place between the two reporters who form one ring of the chain of transmission. There should be no time when the report remained with anonymous narrators because then we cannot investigate the personal traits of the individuals. It should also not suffer from oblivion because, in that case, any change or corruption in the report, during the time it remained hidden from us, cannot be ruled out. If the communication between two consecutive reporters is smooth, continuous and uninterrupted, the report gathers strength. This evidence for continuity is however to be produced in respect of each stage of the chain of reporters, enabling us to say with a fair degree of confidence that the report is worth consideration.
If the investigation of individuals and continuity of the report leads to positive conclusions, we have established one chain of the report. Sometimes two or more such chains of reports, leading to the same event, can be established. For example, two courtiers of Akbar the Great may narrate the same incident. In such cases, the supporting narration should be identical or at least similar. If the individuals involved in the chain and the continuity of their transmission has been investigated, these corroborating reports strengthen and reinforce each other and we are able to place more confidence in the substance brought out by them.
We can summarize our discussion by saying that in micro history, the following components are vital:
· Individuals
· Continuity of the report
· Corroboration (if any, by way of multiple chains of individuals)
If an event or a substance is supported by this investigation it becomes worth considering for a historian. However, information obtained through chains of individual to individual transmission can never establish a fact beyond any shadow of doubt. The primary reason is that in such examinations, the historicity of the report ultimately depends on one or two individuals. If our assessment about even one of the individuals in the chain of reporters is faulty, the entire chain is shaken. These individuals may be widely known as men of reasonably good character, fairly reliable memory, relatively sound understanding and relatively free of prejudices. However, they cannot be assumed to be of infallibly good character, unfailing memory, perfect understanding and absolutely free of prejudices. This makes our assessment of individual reports somehow subjective and introduces an element of probability in our judgments.
Similarly, our investigation (and finally our judgment) about them can be extremely cautious, scientific and objective, yet it cannot be infallible and indubitable. We were told that an individual was known to be honest, truthful and reliable, but we know that individual behavior is not predictable. After all we are dealing with human beings. One may be honest and truthful throughout one’s life but stumble in the end. One may have a sound memory yet he may sometimes be forgetful also.
Moreover, how are we going to collect evidence about the personal traits of these individuals? Obviously we would be looking for more parallel chains of reporters to learn about a certain individual. These sources would suffer from the same limitations, thereby compounding our problem.
Chains of reports consisting of Generations
On the other hand in macro history we deal with facts, incidents and reports transmitted, not by one or two individuals to another individual, but by one generation that witnessed a fact and testified it to the next generation. For example, the fact that the Crusades did take place between Christians and the Muslims is a fact transmitted by generations to generations. The generation that actually fought and witnessed the wars conveyed this knowledge to the next generation and so on till it reached us. This communication to succeeding generations can be through any means - oral, written or through any mode of art. But the important condition is that there should be no interruption between the successive generations that were involved.
Here we may note that the units of such chains of transmission are not individuals, but generations. This singular difference changes the very character of such a report.
Historical facts are empirical observations of men. This means that they communicate to other people facts they had observed through their senses. The limitations of senses are known. However, in Generation-to-Generation Transmission, we are talking of the empirical observations of the entire generations and not of a few individuals. Such testimony, obviously, provides us the surest and the most reliable knowledge of a past event. Such knowledge is as definite as anything can be in human matters.
When we are talking of scientific principles of history, an important condition of Generation-to- Generation Transfer is that it should not deal with opinions and ideas of individuals but the hard facts, which were witnessed, seen and/or heard by the first Generation (empirical facts) This condition eliminates the possibility of mythologies and opinions being included in the Generation-to-Generation Transmission.
Summarizing the salient differences between Individual-to-Individual Transmission and Generation-to-Generation Transmission are:
1. The reliability of the report from generation to generation does not hinge upon one or two individuals. It rather depends on the hundreds and thousands of people that lived together in a known place and time.
2. It is no more necessary to investigate the character, understanding, memory or impartiality of individuals involved in a Generation-to-Generation transmission. The entire generations can neither be investigated not should it be necessary. When such a large number of people convey a fact, it is impossible that all of them could have wrongly reported it, forgotten it or could have developed a consensus on telling lies.
3. There is no need to establish the continuity of reporting chain consisting of individuals. One generation is so perfectly enmeshed into another, and the contact and proximity with the next generation is so intimate and obvious that conducting an inquiry to prove it is not required, and the continuity should be taken as granted.
4. When hundreds and thousands of people are conveying a fact to the next generation, we do not need any corroborating evidence. Agreement of the entire generation is so overwhelmingly strong that it renders further corroboration redundant.
5. An Individual-to-Individual Report only makes a fact probable and therefore remains open to further investigations and is revised in the light of fresh discoveries, whereas a Generation-to-Generation Transmission proves the fact beyond any shadow of doubt.
Terminology of the Muslim Historiography
In the Historiography (Ilm-e-Hadeeth) developed by the Muslims, the Individual to Individual Report is termed as Khabar-e-Wahid (Individuals’ Report) whereas the Generation to Generation Report is called Mutawatir, and the process of Generation to Generation Transmission is known as Tawatur.
The entire history is seen as divided into these two broad categories. It is believed that Tawatur is above all suspicion and there is no need to investigate the individuals involved in communicating it. Rather, a Mutawatir report is defined as one in which there is no need to examine the individuals constituting the chain, because there is no chain of individuals that can be termed as the basis of the tawatur.
Tawatur is thus defined as the process by which one generation communicates a fact (observed or heard) to another, and so on, without interruption. This communications is achieved in such a manner that the number of communicators in each generation is so large that there is no possibility of the fact being misperceived, misconstrued, forgotten or their having agreed to tell a lie or distort the facts.
The Holy Qur’an has reached us through Tawatur
The Holy Qur’an has reached us through the process of tawatur - historical continuity and perpetuation achieved through transfer from generation to generation. When we say that the Qur’an has reached us through tawatur, we mean to say that so many people in every generation conveyed it to the next and so on that there can be no doubt about its authenticity. It would be incorrect to believe that a few persons in one generation transmitted it to a few persons in the next. It was handed over by the entire generations to the successive generations. The Generation of the Companions of the Holy Prophet witnessed the revelation and compilation of the Holy Qur’an during the life of the Holy Prophet and then handed it over to the next generation and so on.
The authenticity of the Holy Qur’an has far exceeded the need for any debate. In the presence of established history, we would not accept any individual reports and rumors that assail the Mutawatir Foundation. Since it has achieved the status of Tawatur, no odd Individuals’ Report would affect its credibility. When generations and generations of people without interruption hold the Qur’an as the one and only version of the divine guidance received from the Holy Prophet, such dissenting individual reports would not infringe upon its authenticity. The overwhelming evidence of millions of people would simply override the evidence of a few individuals.
History of Compilation of the Holy Qur’an
The details of the history of compilation of the Holy Qur’an found in the books of history and exegesis provide us the details of the process of Qur’anic preservation and dissemination. However, while we scan through the hadeeth literature and historical records, it should be kept in mind that the historical authenticity, of the Holy Qur’an, is not based on these records, but on Tawatur.